IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.2093 of 2007 Hari Narayan Rai Versus Tej Narayan Rai & Ors ---------------------------------- 11. 05.12.2011 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Harendra Kumar, the learned counsel is appearing on behalf of some of the opposite parties. By the impugned order, the court below has set aside the ex parte decree and restored the T.S.No. 100/91 to its original file and number. It appears that the court below after examination of the order sheet of the title suit has recorded the finding that the summons had not been duly served upon the defendant no.1,2 & 4 and by order dated 17.12.1997 in the suit, the direction was issued to the plaintiff to take steps for fresh service of summons against defendant nos. 1,2 & 4. It has been further found that without service of summons and without a finding of valid service on defendant nos. 1,2 & 4 the, suit has been fixed for ex parte hearing and thereafter the ex parte decree had been passed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties supports the impugned order on the basis of the abovesaid findings and has submitted 2 that no illegality or jurisdiction error has been committed by the court below in passing the impugned order. In view of the findings of fact recorded in the impugned order, there does not appear to be any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and thus the civil revision application is dismissed. However, in view of the fact that the suit is of the year 1991, the learned court below is directed to take up the proceeding of the suit on priority basis and dispose of the suit preferably within nine months from the date of receipt/production of this order. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)