IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.662 of 2009 Usha Thakur Versus Jitendra Kumar@Manish & Anr ---------------------------------- 03. 15.12.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 1. This revision application has been filed against the appellate order by which the prayer of the opposite parties for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. has been allowed by reversing the order passed by the trial court in Miscellaneous Case No.06/06. 2. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellate court has come to the conclusion that the finding of valid service of summons had been recorded by the trial court without examining the process server and has found the same to be against the provisions of Order 5 Rule 19 C.P.C. It has been further held that the fixing of the date of hearing in the suit and thereafter passing an ex parte decree without ensuring valid service of notice upon defendant was clearly without jurisdiction and thus the appellate 2 court has allowed the appeal and has set aside the ex parte decree. Further the appellate court has also directed the parties to appear in the court below within one month for expeditious disposal of the suit. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the opposite parties had all along the knowledge of pendency of the suit but they deliberately avoided to appear only with the malafide intention to linger the disposal of the suit. It has been further contended that the summons had been validly served and the opposite party no.1 had himself put his signature on the summons and as such there is no any illegality in the order of the trial court in confirming the service of summons and proceeding thereafter ex parte. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has submitted that the defendant opposite parties had no knowledge of pendency of the suit, and has supported the findings recorded by the appellate court. 5. After considering the submissions on behalf 3 of the parties and perusing the impugned order it appears that the appellate court has recorded the finding that the process server had not been examined in support of the service of summons and in absence of evidence to support the valid service of summons on the defendants, the trial court has erred in law in recording the satisfaction of the service of summons, and proceeding thereafter ex parte. In view of this finding, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. However, it appears that this matter has arisen out of an eviction suit which has been filed in the year 1999. As such the learned court below is directed to take up the proceeding of the suit on priority basis and dispose of the same within six months from the date of receipt/production of this order. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties have assured this Court that the parties will cooperate in disposal of the suit within the aforesaid time frame and will avoid of taking unnecessary adjournments. The revision application is dismissed with aforesaid directions and observations. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)