Vol. I Rule

70 of the Civil Rules and Orders Vol. I provides for service of the summons in
presence of at least “two independent local residents”—Service in presence of a
resident of a different locality without any explanation about his competence
is not certainly in accordance with the Rule—Under Rule 70 the process server
is required whenever possible to obtain the signature of the mokabila
witness—This implies that in the case of absence of signature of the mokabila
witnesses the process server is required to explain in the report why it could
not be possible to obtain the signatures.

Athaj Abdul
Aziz Vs. Kali Pada Das and others; 9 BLD (HCD) 7

25 DLR 91



69 of the Civil Rules and Order provides that ‘service should always be
personal wherever practicable (Order 5 Rule 12) and the Court ought not in ex
parte cases to act upon anything short of personal service until they are
satisfied that personal service could not reasonably be affected.”

Chandra Rishi and others’. Vs. Sufia Begum and others; 10 BLD (AD) 194.



84(C) of the Civil Rules and Order provides that “where a person refuses to
accept the process the grounds thereof, if any, and the names of the persons
witnessing the refusal should be given”—It is, therefore. Obligatory upon the
process server to mention in his report the name and address of the person. if
any, by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was

Chandra Rishi and others Vs. Sufia Begum and others; 10 BLD (AD) 194.



466(2) of the erstwhile High Court Civil Rules and Order was the same as
present Rule 388(2) of the Civil Rules and Order. On Rule 466(2) C.J.
Choudhury, observed in the case reported in 15 DLR 99 as follows:

Rule contemplates that if, on the date fixed, any important order is passed
this order is to be signed by the pleader and endeavor should be made to get
the signature f the pleader. But if an order is passed on an off date, in a
case not appearing in the cause or on a date not fixed for a case, it is still
more incumbent on the Court to see that the order is communicated,”

order of the Court affecting one of the pillars of the suit, namely place of
trial, cannot be meant for communication to the Pleader Commission only—It was
meant for communication to all the parties involved— Since the Court order was
not communicated and the course of the suit took an adverse turn to the
prejudice of the defendant behind his back and without his knowledge, the suit
was rightly restored by the High Court Division.

M.A. Wahab
and another Vs. Abul Kalam and another; 11 BLD (AD) 274.

15 DLR 99, 4 C.W.N. 237, 238; 33DLR 35; 36DLR 253; 35 DLR 345.


Rule—466 (2)

of the Commissioner’s report without giving opportunity to a party to file
objection against the same and passing of the final decree on the basis of the
same cannot stand—Order directing parties to file objection against the
Commissioner ought to report to have been shown to the party or his Advocate.

Vs. Safed Ali Bepari and others; 2 BLD (HCD) 114.

PLD 1963 Dacca 987; AIR. 1929 Mad 492; AIR. 1920 Lower Burma 31.