ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the defendants/petitioners have called in question the legal validity of the order dated 10-5-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Kotma in Civil Suit No. 98-A/98. 2. The facts as have been unfurled are that the non-applicants as plaintiffs initiated civil action against Baboo All, the father of the present petitioners, for eviction and arrears of rent. Baboo Ali entered contest and disputed the claim of the non-applicant by denying the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and also questioning the title of the non-applicants. Baboo Ali also claimed title in respect of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit Baboo Ali expired, and thereafter, the petitioners were brought on record as legal representatives. After the present petitioners were substituted an objection was raised by them that other legal heirs had been left out. They supplied the names of two daughters of Baboo Ali, namely, Momena Khatoon and Noor Jahan Ahmad. After such an objection was raised and addresses were given, the non-applicants filed an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code to join the two sisters as defendants in the suit. The address of Noor Jahan was given in some place at Calcutta. As far as the notice to Momena Khatoon is concerned, address was given of village Chatgaon in Bangladesh. The learned Trial Judge issued summons by registered post with acknowledgment due. As the acknowledgment due did not come back within thirty days he treated the service to be sufficient by the impugned order. The said order is the cause of grievance of the present petitioners. 3. Assailing the aforesaid order it is submitted by Mr. Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the learned Trial Court Judge would have done well to send the summons to a Competent Court in Bangladesh to be served on Momena Khatoon but as the same has not been done the order treating the service to be sufficient is bad in law. Resisting the aforesaid submission it is submitted by Mr. Fakhruddin, learned counsel for the non-applicants, that the learned Trial Judge has rightly held the service to be sufficient as per the language envisaged under Order V Rule 25 of the Code. 4. Resisting the aforesaid submission it is submitted by Mr. Fakhruddin, learned counsel for the non-applicants, that the learned Trial Judge has rightly held the service to be sufficient as per the language envisaged under Order V Rule 25 of the Code. 4. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar it is apposite to refer to Order V Rule 25 which reads as under :-- "Service where defendant resides out of India and has no agent. Where the defendant resides out of India and has no agent in India empowered to accept service, the summons shall be addressed to the defendant at the place where he is residing and sent to him by post, if there is postal communication between such place and the place where the Court is situate : Provided that where any such defendant resides in Bangladesh or Pakistan, the summons, together with a copy thereof, may be sent for service on the defendant, to any Court in that country (not being the High Court) having jurisdiction in the place where the defendant resides: Provided further that where any such defendant is a public officer in Bangladesh or Pakistan (not belonging to the Bangladesh or, as the case may be, Pakistan military, naval, or air forces) or is a servant of a railway company or local authority in that country, the summons, together with a copy thereof, may be sent for service on the defendant, to such officer or authority in that country as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf." From the aforesaid provision it becomes crystal clear that the summons is to be addressed to the defendant if there is postal communication between the place where Court is situated and the place where summons are to be served. It is not disputed that there is availability of postal communication between Kotma and Chatgaon in Bangladesh. Hence, the learned Trial Judge had issued summons by registered post with acknowledgement due. Mr. Usmani, learned counsel, has given much emphasis on the first proviso to highlight that the Court below should have issued summons to the Competent Court in Bangladesh for effective service on Momena Khatoon. In this context, I may profitably refer to Chapter IV of M.P. Civil Courts Rules which deals with service in places outside India. Rules 91 to 94 are relevant for the present purpose. In this context, I may profitably refer to Chapter IV of M.P. Civil Courts Rules which deals with service in places outside India. Rules 91 to 94 are relevant for the present purpose. They read as under:-- "91. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code as to service outside India (Order V Rules 25 and 26; Order XVI, Rule 8; Order XLVIII, Rule 2) are applicable to the service of summonses to appear and answer, notices of appeal, summonses to give evidence or produce documents and generally to all orders, notices and other documents required by the Code to be served. 92. The main provision of the Code for service outside India is that such service shall be by registered post. The summons shall be forwarded by registered post to the defendant and not sent to any official for service. 93. The summons should be sent by registered post prepaid for acknowledgement, and if the defendant does not appear or is not represented proof should be given by affidavit of the party that at the time of the service the defendant ordinarily resided and was actually residing at the foreign place in question. An acknowledgement purporting to be signed by the defendant or an endorsement by a postal servant that the defendant refused to accept the registered packet, may be deemed by the Court issuing the summons to be prima facie proof of service. 94. (1) Service by post while necessarily confined to cases where there exists postal communication between the place where the Court is situate and the place in which the person to be served resides will, in practice, cover the great majority of cases and resort is not to be had to any other mode of service upon persons outside India save for sufficient reason. (2) The principle is that though there are other modes of services, e.g., through official channels, the Code does not require service outside India to be made by official channels." 5. In my considered view the said Rules are not inconsistent with the language used in the Code. That apart in the first proviso the word "may" has been used. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the said provision does not make it incumbent to send summons Eo a Court in Bangladesh. As far as service of notice is concerned the said provision has been enumerated in Rule 93. That apart in the first proviso the word "may" has been used. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the said provision does not make it incumbent to send summons Eo a Court in Bangladesh. As far as service of notice is concerned the said provision has been enumerated in Rule 93. Appreciating the said Rule it can be said that an affidavit could have been filed by the plaintiff that said Momena Khatoon resides in Bangladesh. Had such an affidavit given the notices would have been deemed to be sufficient on her. The learned Trial Judge has not followed the procedure and accepted the notices to be sufficient on expiry of thirty days. However, I am not inclined to delve into the realm whether after expiry of thirty days the services of notice was sufficient or not. I am inclined to direct if an affidavit is filed by the plaintiff the learned Trial Judge shall treat the services to be sufficient. Mr. Fakhruddin, learned counsel, undertakes that an affidavit in that regard shall be filed within a period of three weeks from today. 6. Accordingly, the civil revision stands disposed of.