3] Mr. Rohan Cama, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there is material on record, which establishes that the respondent was served with the writ of summons at his residential address at Ghatkopar, Mumbai. Further, the service at 'K' Building, Ballard Estate, Mumbai, was in addition to service at residential address in Ghatkopar, since the respondent had his office at the said address. The circumstance that service at 'K' Building was acknowledged by some clerk purporting to represent M/s. Geeta marine Services Pvt. Ltd, of which the respondent was admittedly the Director, before the said company was wound up, is really not a circumstance to hold that there was no valid service of the writ of summons upon the respondent. Further, Mr. Rohan Cama submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to advert to the merits of the disputes between the parties, which was relevant in deciding whether the ex-parte decree should be recalled or not. For these reasons, Mr. Cama submitted that the impugned order warrants interference.
