IN TF HIGH COURT OP KARNATAKA AT BAALORE DATED THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 1998 BEFORE THE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTICE H ,RANGAVITTALACHAR RRP NO.576/1998 BETWEEN: Vinodkumar Garg, S/o,Ramaprasad. Grg, Age : Major, No.4/3 1 Basavanapura Road, Krishnaraj apur am, Bangalore — 560 036, .., PETITIONER (By Sri.B.Ugrappa, Mv.) A N D: Venkatarangaiah, S/o ,Govi ndanirna, Rged about 45 years, No.618, Katha No.675, B, Narayanapura, Basavanapura Road, Krishnaraj apuram, Bangalore 560 036, ... RESPONDENT (By Sri,K,R 9 mesh, Adv, for C/r), *** * ** * . . . . , 2 : 2 :— HRRP is filed U/s.50(1) of the K.R.C. Act against the order dated 9-3—1998 passed in MiSC.No.l0025/l997 on the file of the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes 1 Baflgaiore. This HRRP coming on for admission this day 0 the court made the following: ORDER Petitioner herein had filed an eviction petition against the respondents and obtained an ex—parte order. Tenant after coming to know of the same, has filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for kE settingd the same, This application of the tenant was resisted by the landlord and an enquiry was conducted by the learned Yudge of the Small Causes 1 Bangalore, in Misc, No.10025/97, The landlord examined himself and also the Court Amin to prove that the summons of the HRC proceedings was duly served and therefore the application has to be rej ected, / —: 3 : Learned Judge disbelieved the evidere and also the evidence of the amin on the ground that the aniin had not followed the procedure contemplated under Order 5 Rule 18 of CPC which prescribes the manner in which summons has to be served. Consequently the learned Judge allowed the petition setting aside the exparte order, x agree with the reasonings of the learned Judge as,hdmittedly summons has not been served in the manner prescribed under Order 5 Rule 18 of CPC which is mandatory. There is no merit in this petition. Petition rejected. S oJ— JUDGE, vns, R, y:j , By I Copy — Assistant Reg1strr ‘th Court of Krpaaka a1ore-J