JUDGMENT Blank, J. - This Rule arises from the following facts: There is a partition suit in which one of the parties, Defendant No. 1, Sk. Abdur Rahim, carried on business at Henzada in Lower Burma. The details of the suit are not material for the present purposes. Suffice it to say that notice was sought to be served on his daughter, Sm. Hamida Khatun, described as the local agent of Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiff averred that during his absence in Burma Defendant No. 1 had entrusted the management of his properties to his daughter Sm. Hamida Khatun and her husband and asked the Court to appoint her local agent of the Defendant No. 1 and to order that summons be served on her as such. The lady did not file a written statement but put in an application, denying that she was the local agent of her father, Defendant No. 1, and stated that she resided with her husband elsewhere and that the title deeds of the properties were with her father in Burma and that in his absence there would not be a fair trial. The other Defendants put in a written statement submitting inter alia that Sm. Hanmida Khatun was not the local agent of her father, Defendant No. 1. The issue whether the Defendant No. 1 was properly represented and whether Hamida Khatun was his local agent was tried as a preliminary issue. The learned Subordinate Judge considered the evidence before him. He observed that the peon had served summons upon Sm. Hamida Khatun and that objection was taken to the service on the ground that she was not the agent of Abdur Rahim (also upon the ground of minority, but that question is not at present material). The learned Subordinate judge also observed that Sm. Hamida Khatun does not come forward and deny the averment of the Plaintiff that she is looking after the properties on behalf of her father. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the facts that she had married into a family in the District of Burdwan and that she was a pardanashin lady did not stand in the way of her looking after the properties of her father in his absence and that as she was in charge of the properties, service had been properly effected and the Defendant No. 1 was properly represented. 2. 2. We have found some difficulty in dealing with this case inasmuch as the position of a Defendant in enemy-occupied territory is evidently anomalous. this Court was consulted during 1943 on a proposal of the Government of India to provide by legislation for representation of persons carrying on business in enemy-occupied territory by appointment of next friend on the lines of Or. 32 of the first schedule to the CPC and for other reliefs to such persons. We have however caused a search of the gazettes to be made as a result of which we find that there has, in fact, been no legislation in this behalf. The result is that we are to deal with the matter on the footing of the ordinary law. 3. On this footing, the question before us is whether the Defendant No. 1 is represented by his daughter. We appreciate the cogency of the considerations which Weighed with the learned Subordinate Judge but looking at the substance of the matter we are unable to find that the Defendant No. 1 is represented in any real sense. The rule is therefore made absolute with costs. We assess the hearing-fee at one gold mohur. Akram, J. I agree.