ORDER George Vadakkel, J. 1. The Deputy Registrar has put up a note with reference to a letter of the Officiating Officer Commanding addressed to the District Collector, Ernakulam, Kerala and copied to the Registrar, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, forwarding another letter sent by the 2nd respondent herein to the District Collector, Ernakulam and copied to the Registrar of this Court seeking direction as regards the next stop to be done in this case in view of the aforesaid communications. In the letter sent by the 2nd respondent to the District Collector he says that he is serving in Military under special condition and that he is not in a position to conduct the case. He further says that there is nobody in the Kerala State who can be 'interested' (entrusted) with the duty. The Officiating Officer Commanding says in his letter that the facts brought out by the second respondent are genuine. 2. Under S.6(1) of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act. 1925, if the Court has reason to believe, that an Indian Soldier, who is a party to any preceding pending before it, is unable to appear therein, and if he is not represented by any person duly authorised to appear, plead or act on his behalf, the court shall suspend the proceeding, and shall give notice thereof in the prescribed manner to the prescribed authority. The proviso thereto enables the Court to refrain from suspending the proceeding and issuing the notice as aforesaid in two contingencies of which one is that the interests of the soldier in the proceeding are, in the opinion of the court, either identical with those of any other party to the proceeding and adequately represented by such other party or merely of a formal nature. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought to rely on this clause to contend for the position that I should refrain myself from suspending the proceeding and issuing the notice as contemplated by S.6(1) as aforesaid. The submission is that the 2nd respondent, who is the son of the 1st defendant in the suit which is one for redemption of a mortgage and in which the preliminary decree for redemption has been passed. The submission is that the 2nd respondent, who is the son of the 1st defendant in the suit which is one for redemption of a mortgage and in which the preliminary decree for redemption has been passed. assigned her mortgage right to the 2nd defendant, son, only after 2nd June 1975 when this court as per its judgment in S. A. No. 160 of 1973 setting aside the dismissal of the suit directed the final decree proceedings to be proceeded with. It is submitted that the mother assigned the mortgage right only on 19th May 1976 on the basis of which assignment the son got himself impleaded as additional 2nd respondent in I. A. No. 7041 of 1969 which is a petition for passing the final decree. On that basis it is contended that the interests of the mother and the son, the assignor or assignee, are identical and that the 2nd respondent's interests are adequately represented by the 1st respondent, mother. 3. It appears to me that since on the basis of the assignment, the son has been allowed to be on the party array as additional 2nd respondent in the final decree proceedings it cannot be said that the assignor, though his mother, can be said to have identical interest in the property with those of the 2nd respondent. Nor am I prepared to say, as at present advised, that the 2nd respondent's interests are adequately represented by the mother, the 1st respondent herein, who has assigned all her interest in the property to her son. In that view I am not prepared to say that the proviso is attracted to the instant case. 4. If the proviso to S.6(1) is not attracted and if there is reason to believe that the 2nd respondent who admittedly is an Indian Soldier is unable to appear herein and if he is not represented by any person duly authorised to appear, plead or act on his behalf, I will have to suspend the proceedings in this Civil Revision Petition, directing notice thereof in the prescribed manner to the prescribed authority. In view of the letters copied to the registrar which have been placed before me by the Deputy Registrar it appears to me that there is reason to believe that the 2nd respondent is unable to appear herein. In view of the letters copied to the registrar which have been placed before me by the Deputy Registrar it appears to me that there is reason to believe that the 2nd respondent is unable to appear herein. He is not represented by any person duly authorised to appear, plead or act oh his behalf. The twin conditions are satisfied and therefore it is necessary to suspend the proceedings. I do so. 5. The office shall give notice of this in the prescribed manner to the prescribed authority. The notice is to be issued in form 'B' in the schedule to the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Rules, 1938. The prescribed authority for the purposes of S.6 is as seen from R.3 of the aforesaid Rules the Officer Commanding the unit or the depot of the unit to which the soldier belongs. I direct notice as aforesaid as contemplated by S.6(1) to the prescribed authority in form 'B' referred to above. 6. Under S.7 of the Act if the prescribed authority certifies in the prescribed manner to this Court that the 2nd respondent is serving under special conditions and that a postponement of the proceeding in respect of the soldier is necessary in the interests of justice, the Court shall postpone the proceeding in respect of the soldier for the prescribed period, or, if no period has been prescribed, for such period as it thinks fit. Under S.8 of the Act if, after issue of a notice under S.6, the prescribed authority either certifies that the soldier is not serving under special conditions or that such postponement is not necessary, or, fails to certify within three months from the date of issue of notice that such postponement is necessary, the Court may continue the proceedings, if it so deems fit. Call the Civil Revision Petition after three months from the date of issue of the notice under S.6 of the Act. By the proceedings dated 5th April 1978 I directed that this Civil Revision Petition shall be called after three months of that date. Thereafter, the Officer Commanding sent a letter dated 13th October, 1978 to the Registrar. That letter was with reference to the notice issued on 4th October, 1978 from this Court as contemplated by S.6 of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925 in Form B of the Schedule to the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Rules, 1933. Thereafter, the Officer Commanding sent a letter dated 13th October, 1978 to the Registrar. That letter was with reference to the notice issued on 4th October, 1978 from this Court as contemplated by S.6 of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925 in Form B of the Schedule to the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Rules, 1933. That letter is not as contemplated by R.5 of the rules aforesaid in Form C in the Schedule to the aforesaid rules in so far as the said letter says only that 'Sri. K. Gopakumar is serving in the field area and he is likely to stay in this unit more than one year'. That letter winds up by requesting that his case may please he deferred till he is in field are a. The certificate in Form C as required by R.5 which is to be issued by the Officer Commanding is to be that the concerned soldier who is a party to the proceedings before the court and who is mentioned in the notice issued in Form B "is serving under special conditions and that a postponement of the proceeding in respect of the soldier is necessary in the interests of justice". It was awaiting such a certificate that I directed that the Civil Revision Petition be adjourned by three months. Under S.8 of the Act if the prescribed authority, that is to say, the Officer Commanding, fails to certify, in the case of a soldier resident in the district in which the Court is situate, within two months or. in any other case, within three months from the date of the issue of the notice that such postponement is necessary, the Court may, if it thinks fit, continue the proceeding. In view of the failure to issue a certificate as contemplated by R.5 of the rules mentioned above in Form C, it appears to me that there is no need to stay the proceedings and the same can continue. Post the Civil Revision Petition in the normal course for hearing.