30. Substitution of letter for summons.- (1) The court may, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, substitute for a summons a letter signed by the Judge or such officer as he may appoint in this behalf, where the defendant is, in the opinion of the court, of a rank entitling him to such mark of consideration.
(2) A letter substituted under sub-rule (1) shall contain all the particulars required to be stated in a summons, and subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), shall be treated in all respects as a summons. (3) A letter so substituted may be sent to the defendant by post or by a special messenger selected by the court, or in any other manner which the court thinks fit; and, where the defendant has an agent empowered to accept service, the letter may be delivered or sent to such agent. HIGH COURT AMENDMENTS Rules 31 and 32 ALLAHABAD.- Insert the following as Rules 31 and 32: “31. An application for the issue of a summon for a party or a witness shall be made in the form prescribed for the purpose. No other forms shall be received by the Court”. “32. Ordinarily every process, except those that are to be served on Europeans, shall be written in the Court Vernacular. But where a process is sent for execution to Court in a district where a different language is in ordinary use, it shall be written in English and shall be accompanied by a letter in English requesting its execution.
In case where the return of service is in a language different from that of the district from which it is issued it shall be accompanied by an English translation.” ((Noti. No. 1953/35(a) of 22-5-1915 and 19-2-1921)1. Rule 31 ANDHRA PRADESH.- Same as that of Madras (9-6-1959) : Reg. 8 of 1965 (wet. 1-10-1967). KERALA.- Same as Madras except for “India” read “the Government”(9-6-1959). MADRAS AND PONDICHERRY.- Add the following after Rule 30: “31. (1) The Court may, on the application of the plaintiff and on such terms as to security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit. dispense with the service of summons on a defendant who is resident in territory belonging to or occupied by a State at war with India: Provided that an order dispensing with service of summons shall not be made unless the Court is satisfied that the defendant is resident is such territory and that service of summons on him in the mode prescribed by the Code is not possible. (2) The Court may before making the said order direct such publication of the application as it considers necessary in the circumstances. (3) Where in any suit an order dispensing with service of summons on a defendant is made under this rule and a decree or order is passed against him, the Court may on his application and on such terms as may be just set aside such decree or order and appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. (4) The provisions of the first proviso to Rule 13 of Order IX and the provisions of Rule 14 of the said Order shall apply to an order setting aside a decree or order under sub-rule (3).
(5) The application under sub-rule (3) shall be filed within one year from the date of cessation of hostilities with the State.
(6) The provision of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, shall apply to application under sub-rule (3). (7) The provisions of this rule shall apply mutaties mutandis to a respondent in an appeal or a civil revision petition who is a resident in such territory as is referred to in sub-rule (1).
32. Where any party in a suit is represented by a pleader, the plaint or the written statement, as the case may be, shall give the address of the pleader within the local limits of the city, town or place where the Court is situate and the said address of the pleader of shall be the address for service on the party represented by the said pleader for purposes all notices and processes issued in the suit. All such notices and processes in the suit or in any interlocutory matter in the suit shall be sufficiently served if left by a party or pleader or by a person employed by the defendant or by an officer or employee of the Court at the said address for service on the party intended to be served. 33. Unless the Court otherwise directs, notice of an interlocutory application in the suit need not be served on a party who having been duly served with summons on the main suit has failed to appear and has been declared ex parte by the Court: Provided that the Court shall direct such notice to be issued and served on any such party in application for the amendment of any pleading in the suit, if the Court is of the opinion that such party may be interested in or affected by the proposed amendment. 34. The provision of Rules 32 and 33 shall also apply mutatis mutandis to appeals and revision petitions”.
| 