- (1.) SUBJECT CONTROVERCY: Plaintiff filed the suit as against three defendants. The defendant No. 1 is A Shipping Company having its head office at Korea. The defendant No. 3 is also a Foreign Company having its office at London. The defendant No. 2 is an Indian Insurance Company. We are concerned with defendant No. 1 and 3. The plaintiff filed the suit as against the defendants, inter-alia claiming damage to the Cargo transported by the defendant No. 1 from the Port of Calcutta to the Port of Felixstowe by "M.V. CHOYANG ARK".
(2.) The plaintiff served writ of summons upon the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff also attempted service upon the respondent No. 3. However, the service return appearing at pages 21-22 would show, the Sheriff's office received postal acknowledgement receipt for the defendant No. 2 however, did not receive anything in respect of defendant No. 1 and 3. The present appeal would relate to service return of the defendant No. 3 appearing at pages 25-38. It appears, plaintiff claimed money decree as against the defendants jointly and severally and in the alternative, an inquiry into damages as against defendant No. 1 and 2. In paragraph 15, the plaintiff stated "the plaintiff claimed no relief against pro forma defendant No. 3 but it is proper that the adjudication of the dispute be heard in its presence."
(3.) The suit came up for hearing before the Learned Single Judge when the defendant No. 1 filed an application for dismissal of the suit on the ground, in absence of summons being served upon the defendant No. 3 the suit should be dismissed. The learned Judge declined, hence this appeal.;