LUTTERODT J.
On 18 July 1986, the plaintiff-respondent issued a writ against the defendant-applicant claiming four reliefs. By the address for service, which was set out on the writ, and on the plaintiff’s own showing the defendant was as a matter of fact not resident in the jurisdiction. She was clearly out of the jurisdiction at the time of the issue of the writ. The record shows that the writ was served on a Petri Magnussen. At the close of the pleadings and by the summons for directions filed on 5 November 1986, the following issue was formulated: whether the writ of summons was issued in violation of the law and is therefore null and void. This issue is unavoidable in view of paragraph 12 of the statement of defence which reads:
“(12) The first defendant will contend in point of law that the writ of summons was issued without the leave of the court as sanctioned by Order 2, r. 4 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A) and is consequently contrary to law and pro…