SOUMEN SEN,J. - (1.) This is an application for substitution of the original defendant no.1.
(2.) The suit was instituted on 12th June, 2006. There was some delay in lodging the writ of summons. It appears that the summons was lodged with the Sheriff on 29th February, 2008. The summons was attempted to be served on the defendant no.1 on 7th March, 2008 but the same could not be served as one Mr. G. Banerjee, an authorised person for and on behalf of the defendant no.1, refused to accept the service of the summons. The Bailiff returned with the unserved copy of the writ of summons on the ground stated in the said report. The summons on the defendant no.2 was despatched on 14th March, 2008 and 26th March, 2008. The postal acknowledgment receipt was received by the Sheriff. A duplicate copy of the summons sent by Registered Post on the defendant no.1 was returned undelivered marked "Left". The receipt was received by the Sheriff's office on 3rd April, 2008. The mode of service issued on 23rd August, 2017 indicates such facts.
(3.) On the basis of the report dated 3rd June, 2008 filed by the Bailiff, an application was taken out on behalf of the plaintiff to ascertain whether the summons on the defendant no.1 is a good service or not and in the event it is held that it is not a good service, a prayer was made for substituted service. The said application was filed on 4th September, 2008. The said application was moved before the Learned Master. The Learned Master, without deciding the application, referred the application to Court. It is stated that the matter suddenly appeared before the Court on 4th September, 2017, as a result whereof, the application was dismissed for default. The order dismissing the said application was, however, recalled on 30th October, 2017. Thereafter, an order was passed in GA No.3097 of 2008 on 8th November, 2017 directing substituted service. It is stated in the petition that before publication of the advertisement, a local enquiry was made by the applicant through his agents and during such enquiry it came to the notice of the agents that the original defendant had died during the pendency of the suit leaving her surviving two sons, namely, Nil Madhab Roy and Beni Madhab Roy, both are residing at 20, Loudon Street, Kolkata. However, the death of the defendant no.1 could not be ascertained. It is stated that the records of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation was not allowed to be inspected by the agents on the ground that inspection of the records regarding birth and death are only allowed to near relations and they are only entitled to take copies of the Death Certificate.;