1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1594/2008. Shamim Aara. VERSUS Shama & Another. 23.04.2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Vigyan Shah, for the appellant. ***** Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order dated 18.03.2008 by which the application filed by the appellant under order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. has been dismissed by the learned trial court. The principal submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was impleaded as a party subsequent to the filing of the suit by allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff. It is submitted that after the order impleading the appellant was passed, the summons were not served upon the appellant and there was collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant vendor. The learned trial court has given a categorical finding that the summons were issued to the appellant and the same were sent on the address of the appellant for appearance 12.08.1999. The finding of the learned court below is that the aforesaid summons for 12.08.1999 were received by the mother of the appellant Smt.Anjo and considering the 2 aforesaid service as sufficient the learned court below has dismissed the application filed by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant does not have good relation with her mother and, therefore, she could not be produced in evidence. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, firstly there is no such averment as admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant in his application under Order 9 Rule 13 that Smt.Anjo is not residing with the appellant at the address on which the summons were served. The provisions of Order 5 Rule 15 C.P.C. are very clear in this behalf, which read as follows:- “R.15.Where service may be on an adult member of defendant's family.- Where in any suit the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effect on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, service may be made on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with him.” The aforesaid provision clearly enables the process server to serve the summons when the person concerned is not found on an adult member of the family whether male or female who is residing with him. That being the position, the service upon the mother of the appellant in terms of Rule 15 of Order 5 C.P.C. is 3 sufficient service and, therefore, the learned court below, in my opinion, has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the appellant. Consequently, this appeal as well as the stay application are dismissed summarily. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.