Judgment reversed. McMurray, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

Saunders filed a petition for certiorari complaining of a sentence imposed by the Municipal Court for the City of Atlanta. A motion to dismiss the certiorari was predicated on petitioner's failure to obtain service on the municipal court judge who rendered the judgment. The superior court judge found the lack of service was an amendable defect and permitted the petitioner to serve the municipal court judge well after the expiration of the time provided in Code Ann. 19-210 (Code 19-210, as amended through Ga. L. 1961, pp. 190, 191). Having granted an application for interlocutory appeal, we must determine the correctness of that ruling. Held:

Code Ann. 19-210 provides "All certiorari proceedings shall be filed in the clerk's office within a reasonable time after sanction thereof, and shall be served on the respondent within five days after such filing by the sheriff or his deputy, or by the petitioner or his attorney. A copy of the petition and writ shall be served on the opposite party . . ."

Under certiorari practice as it existed in this state since 1851, service on the respondent -- the magistrate or judicial officer whose decision was sought to be reviewed -- was required. See now repealed Code 19-211 (Repealed by Ga. L. 1961, pp. 190, 191). As held in Zachery v. State, 105 Ga. App. 301 (1) (124 SE2d 420), this court construed the applicability of Code Ann. 19-403 and determined: "A law prescribing and liberalizing the form of pleadings will apply to all pleadings filed after its enactment, although the action is pending before that time. Ga. L. 1961, p. 190 et seq. was properly applied to a petition for certiorari pending at the time of its enactment, so as to allow the amendment of the petition in both form and substance." In the second case, Hipp v. City of East Point, 105 Ga. App. 775 (125 SE2d 672), this court found that, under Code Ann. 19-210, service on the opposite party within 5 days was mandatory and in the absence of such service the application for certiorari was properly dismissed. No mention was made of any "saving grace" or amelioration that would be provided by Code Ann. 19-403.

Subsequently in Yield, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 144 Ga. App. 637 (242 SE2d 478) and Schaffer v. City of Atlanta, 144 Ga. App. 702 (242 SE2d 288), this court held that Code Ann 19-403, although permitting "certiorari proceedings to be amended at any stage as to matters of form or substance, etc. does not apply to the filing of a late answer." (Emphasis supplied).

Analogizing the principle enunciated in those cases to the present case, it would therefore seem inescapable to conclude that Code Ann. 19-403 could not be utilized to permit service beyond the time permitted in Code Ann. 19-210. The trial judge erred in overruling the motion to dismiss the petition for certiorari.

Herman Pierre, Jr., for appellant.