Greaves, J.:— These two appeals are by Defendants Nos. 3 and 1 respectively in a partition suit for setting aside an ex-parte decree that had been passed for partition of certain properties. Defendant No. 3 is a pardanashin lady and her case is that she was never served. Defendant No. 1, who is appellant in Appeal No. 64 of 1924, says that he was unable to present the case to the Court owing to the negligence or collusion of one Bhola Nath, an employee of his who had been entrusted by him with the conduct of the case. So far as the lady is concerned, Defendant No. 1, the appellant in Appeal No. 63, it appears that the service was effected by serving summons on her third son who lives in the same house as the lady. Under the circumstances it seems to me that it must be taken to be a proper service on this lady and we have not the slightest doubt that she knew all about the suit and that she had ample opportunity of giving due and proper instructions with regard to the conduct of the case.
2. The result is that Appeal No. 63 of 1924 is dismissed with costs. Hearing-fee: one gold mohur. (His Lordship then dealt with appeal No. 64 and proceeded). In the circumstances, holding as we do that the appellant was negligent in the case we do not think that we should be justified in setting aside the ex parte decree which has been passed.
3. Parties should learn that they cannot have as of right an adjournment; or if an adjournment is refused and the case proceeds that they cannot have the case restored as of right; and it will be better for the conduct of litigation, as well as for the community as a whole when this is realized.
4. The result is that this appeal is also dismissed with costs. Hearing-fee: one gold mohur.
Duval, J.:— I agree.
5. Appeals dismissed.