saying that this being the principle ground, the petitioner was expected to give proper details as to when Mr. Maneithino Cunha had migrated to United Kingdom. That apart, there were three other legal representatives, who were parties before the learned Mamlatdar, who could have been contacted, as their address was available on record. Thus, even assuming that Mr. Maneithino Cunha had migrated to United Kingdom, it cannot be accepted that the other petitioners, could not have been contacted for advising them to challenge the order. I have carefully gone through the affidavit filed by Advocate Linus Emmunuel, who claimed that Mr. Maneithino Cunha could not be contacted on his telephone number, which was made available to him. There is nothing on record to show that an attempt was made to communicate the order by post or otherwise, as the address was very much available on record. For these reasons, I do not find that the ground on the basis of non availability of Mr. Maneithino Cunha, could be accepted. It can further be seen that even after receipt of the summons in the suit in May, 2010, the certified copy of the order was applied for on 08.11.2011. This is again on the spacious ground that the true import and the nature of the
