26.07.2006, the applicant filed an application stating that the bank could not serve the summons at the address of the first and second Defendant for the reasons that the summons was returned with an endorsement that the addressee had left and the recent address was not known. An adjournment was sought again. The Appellant also points out to a letter dated 02.06.2006, written by the branch manager of the original applicant bank to the general manager of the bank stating that the second Defendant had expired and that summons could not be served on Defendants Nos.1 and 2 for want of sufficient address and placed a request for service of notice by publication. It is pertinent to note that Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had on 15.02.2005, written a letter to the branch manager of the original applicant bank intimating him that they have moved out of their residence temporarily since January 2005 and that the second Defendant had fallen and fractured her hand, it was also informed that she has been detected of breast cancer since June 2003 and therefore, they moved to Mumbai for her treatment and hence, requested for cooperation on the part of the bank. Even thereafter, there were several communications between the Appellants and the bank about the transaction. The Appellant would, therefore, contend that the applicant bank was aware of the fact that Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were not residing at their Pune address and had moved to Mumbai for purpose of facilitating the treatment of the second Defendant who was suffering from cancer. The Appellant has, therefore, appealed against the impugned judgment.
