I.P.MUKERJI, J. - (1.) The plaintiff took out this application wanting an order of this court for his examination on commission.
(2.) Only the sixth and seventh defendants were represented in court. Their learned counsel took serious objection to any order being passed in this behalf.
(3.) Before entertaining this application, I thought that it would be prudent if a report was obtained from the Registry with regard to the service of the writ of summons. On 2nd May, 2016 I made an order asking for a report from them. Very diligently, on 9th May, 2016, the Registrar Original Side reported that the Writ of summons was duly served on third and fourth defendants on 30th August, 2007 and on the first and seventh defendant on 6th September 2007. There was no evidence of service upon the second, fifth and sixth defendants. Mr. Rupak Ghosh, learned advocate for the plaintiff submitted and this is not contradicted by Mr. Menon learned counsel for the sixth and seventh defendants that the second , fifth and sixth defendants were notified of the proceeding by publication of newspaper advertisements (substituted service) further to an order passed by this court.;