1. ' This is an application under Order IX, rule 13, C.P.C. For setting aside the judgment and decree passed on 18-12-1978. The application was filed on 30-1-1983. The main ground as pleaded by the defendant is that the summons was never served on the defendant. The defendants Nos.1 to 3 are the directors of the respondent No,4. From the record it seems that the summonses were issued by registered post, as well as through bailiff. The summons issued by registered post were returned unserved as none of the defendants were found at the time of service. Three times the bailiff has submitted his report that whenever he went, the chowkidar available there stated that the mill has been closed, and the defendants Nos.1 to 3 do not attend the Office. In one of the reports the bailiff had stated that the Chowkidar told him that the defendants have instructed not to accept any notice. In those circumstances the plaintiffs filed application under Order V, rule 20, C.P.C. Which was granted and the summons was published in daily 'SUN' on 3-7-1978. The learned counsel for the defendant has contended that the summons were be' g issued at the wrong address. This objection is not sustainable because the defendants themselves in their affidavit have not stated what is their correct address. Even in affidavit they have not given their own address. On the other hand the plaintiffs have filed two letters with the plaint as Annexures and D in which the defendants Nos.1 to 3 have given their address as c/o Ghafoor Textile Mills. Therefore, this was the address given by the defendants in their correspondence and on the same address the summonses were issued.
2. ' The learned counsel then contended that the order of substituted service was not proper and legal as in the application facts have not been stated about the attempts made by the bailiff to serve the defendants. A perusal of the application clearly shows that all material facts have been stated in it and the order passed by the Court granting this application was legal and proper, and no exception can be taken to it.
3. The third contention of the learned counsel is that the publication was made in a newspaper which did not have wide circulation and further that the defendants. Are not the subscribers of this newspaper and only know Gujrati. These facts have not been stated in the affidavit. The learned counsel state that this fact has been stated in the rejoinder, which is an afterthought. If at all the publication was to be challenged those facts should have been stated in the affidavit. It is well settled that new facts cannot be introduced in the rejoinder.
4. For these reasons the application is dismissed.