annexed with the Civil Misc. application. Saumerndrapad Singh Dugar has executed the Vakalatnama as power of attorney holder of the family members wherein the name of the petitioner is not there. In other words, he is not the power of attorney holder of the petitioner. So far the Misc. appeal before the High Court is concerned, from perusal of the memo of appeal, I find that only Saumerndrapad Singh Dugar had filed the Misc. Appeal whereby this petitioner is respondent No.20. Nothing has been brought on record that in fact in that Misc. Appeal, notice has been served on the present petitioner and he had also appeared in the Misc. appeal. It further appears that the Court below nowhere recorded any finding that prior to proceeding the case ex.-pate against the petitioner, notice was validly served on the defendant No.19, i.e, the present petitioner. For the first time, when this application is filed by the petitioner, the Court below has recorded the finding that under Order 5 Rule 15, the notice was validly served. Further, the Court below has not considered the point which is being raised by the petitioner before this Court which is supported by Ext.‘3’ and ‘3/1’. Only on the basis of the provision under Order 5 Rule 15 CPC, notice has been accepted as valid service. The Court below has also not recorded as to whether there was any affidavit filed by the party in the case in the Court below as to whether the
