A.N.RAY, J. - (1.) THIS is a suit for the recovery of possession of premises No. 16A Chowringhee Road, Calcutta. The suit was filed against the defendant described as Bright Mc Ivor carrying on business at 16A Chowringhee Road in the town of Calcutta within the aforesaid jurisdiction.
(2.) MR . Advocate -General appearing on behalf of the defendant raised only two issues : 1. Has the defendant been properly served in accordance with law? 2. Is the suit maintainable? There was an application by the plaintiff on 3 -2 -1954 for an order that the returnable date of the writ of summons be extended by one month from the date of the order to be made and an order that leave be granted to the Sheriff of Calcutta to serve the duplicate cooy of the writ together with the copy of plaint on R.N. Poddar on behalf of the defendant firm. In that application in paragraph 2 it was alleged, 'the business of the defendant firm is being carried on by one R.N. Poddar who is also in complete charge and management of the said business'. Orders were passed in terms of prayers fa) to (c) of the petition by the learned Master on 6 -2 -1954. Along with the writ there was a notice taken out by the attorneys for the plaintiff addressed to R.N. Poddar stating that the writ of summons in the suit was being served on R.N. Poddar as the person having at the time of such service the control and management of the defendant firm. On the reverse of the notice there is an endorsement which reads as follows: 'Received a copy Bright and Me Ivor, G. Shroff, Manager. 23 -2 -1954.' The other endorsement is by G.C. Mukherjee, who I am told is still in the employment of the Sheriff. The endorsement made by him is as follows: 'Served by me on 23 -2 -1954 at about 4 p.m. a copy of the within notice on Sri G. Shroff, Manager of the defendant firm for R.N. Poddar as a person having the control and management of the defendant firm.' The third endorsement on the notice is made by the Deputy Sheriff bearing date 11th March 1954 which reads as follows; 'I do hereby certify that I did on 23 -2 -1954 serve the within notice on the manager of the defendant firm within named.' This endorsement is described as an answer of the Sheriff and is signed by the Deputy Sheriff for the Sheriff. On the writ there is another endorsement signed by the Deputy Sheriff for the Sheriff and described as the answer of the Sheriff which reads as follows: - 'I do hereby certify that I did on the 23rd day of February, 1954 serve a copy of the within writ of summons with a copy of the plaint on the defendant company within named.' The date of the answer is 11 -3 -1954.
(3.) THERE is a written statement filed on 22 -3 -1954. The written statement is described as one on behalf of the defendant, and it is signed as follows: 'Bright and Me Ivor by the pen of R.N. Poodar a person served as a Partner'. In paragraph 1 of the written statement it is alleged that the defendant is not a firm and the service of the writ of summons on R.N. Poddar as a partner of the defendant firm is wholly ineffective nor is R.N. Poddar a partner of the defendant firm. It is said that the said R.N. Poddar has entered appearance under the protest.;