IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1229 of 2008 1Shanti Devi. Wife of Late Prameshwar Sao. 2.Brahma Nand Prasad, S/o Late Prameshwar Sao. 3.Bishnu Kumar ,S/o Late Prameshwar Sao. All are R/o Mohalla- Chakhussain, P.S.-Fatuha(Now Khusrupur), P.O.-Khusrupur, District-Patna. -(Plaintiffs-Opp.Parties 1 to 3)-Petitioners. Versus 1. Shiv Sankar Prasad, Son Late Janak Sao. (Defendants no.1A) -(Petitioner). 2.Sri Prayag Sao, S/o Late Guru Sharan Sao. 3.Shankar Sao, S/o Late Guru Sharan Sao. 4.Prem Chand Prasad Sao, S/o Late Kasi Sao. 5.Ravindra Prasad Sao, S/o Late Kasi Sao. ----------(Defendant Nos. 2 to 5-Opp.Party Nos. 4 to 7-Opp.Parties. ----------- 4. 18.08.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of this revision application. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 31.05.2008 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 10 of 2000 by Munsif, Patna City whereby the petition field by the opposite parties/defendants under Order 9,Rule 13 and Section 151 C.P.C. has been allowed . It is not in dispute that there was an eviction suit No.29/89 in which an ex parte decree had been passed against the defendants. After getting the knowledge of the ex parte 2 decree the defendants filed the petition praying for setting aside the said ex parte decree which gave rise to Miscellaneous Case No.10 of 2000. After issuing notices upon the plaintiff and after considering the evidence on behalf of the parties the court below has recorded the finding that the summons had not been served upon the defendants and on this basis the court below has set aside the ex parte decree. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has very strenuously submitted that the finding recorded by the learned court below is not in accordance with law and is in fact inconsistent with the materials available on the record. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned court has taken notice of the evidence of the parties including the petition filed on behalf of the plaintiff petitioners in the Title suit No. 29 of 1989 praying for the substituted service on the defendants by publication of the notices in the newspaper to hold that the summons were not validly served upon the defendants. The opposite party witness no.2 who is one of the opposite parties himself in the Miscellaneous Case No. 10/2000 had deposed that the steps for publication of notices in the newspaper had been taken on the basis of application by his father which fact itself 3 corroborates the contention regarding invalid service of summons. The court below has also recorded the finding that the defendants were illiterate persons and therefore the publication in the daily newspaper had no meaning and relevance for them. The learned counsel has made a prayer to this court to look into the certain documents in order to substantiate his contention that the defendants are literate persons and the notices had been validly served upon them. However there is complete absence of necessary pleadings in the revision petition in this regard and as such those documents cannot be looked into. The court below has recorded the finding of non-service of summons upon the defendants after considering the material evidence on record and has rightly set aside the ex parte decree. There is no illegality and jurisdiction error in the impugned order. The civil revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. Since the matter arises out of an eviction suit the learned court below is directed to expedite the hearing of the same and endeavour to dispose of the suit preferably within six months without granting unnecessary adjournments to the parties. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)