N.L. UNTWALIA, J.

(1) THIS appeal by special leave is from the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High court reversing the decision of the Second Additional District Judge. Indore in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 23 of 1975. The appellant company had filed that case under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter called the Code, for setting aside an ex parte decree for Rs. 28,479.00 passed in favour of the respondent firm on 22/04/1975 against the appellant. The learned Additional District Judge held that summons in the suit was not duly served on the company and it came to know about the decree on 29/07/1975. Hence he set aside the ex parte decree. The respondent firm filed a revision in the High court under S. 1 15 of the Code. The High court allowed the revision, set aside the judgment of the trial court and upheld the passing of the ex parte decree, Hence this appeal.

(2) THE respondent filed the suit at Indore on 24/02/1975 against the appellant claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 26,000.00 on account of the alleged non-delivery of certain goods. Summons in the suit was sent to the registered office of the company in Calcutta and is said to have been served on one Shri Navlakha on 17/03/1975 asking the company to appear at Indore on 25/03/1975 for settlement of issues. Since the company did not appear in the court on that date, eventually, the ex parte decree was passed on 22/04/1975. According to the case of the appellant the company came to know about the ex parte decree for the first time when its constituted attorney Shri S. K. Jhunjhunwala received a notice from the respondent by registered post demanding the decretal dues. Thereupon Shri N. S. Pareek, the Works secretary of the company who is in charge of the legal matters was sent to Indore to ascertain as to how the ex parte decree came to be passed. Pareek learnt that the summons purported to have been served on Navlakha on 17/03/1975. Navlakha was a men; Office Assistant in the Sales Department of the company. He was neither a secretary nor a Director nor any other principal officer of the company authorised to receive summons in the suit. He did not bring the fact of the receipt of summons by him to the knowledge of any responsible officer of the company. The company remained in dark and, as stated above, learnt for the first time on 29/07/1975 about the passing of the ex parte decree.

(3) N. S. Pareek was the only witness examined on behalf of tinappellant in the miscellaneous case tried by the learned Additional District Judge. No witness was examined on behalf of the respondent. The trial court held:

I hold that handing over of summons to Navlakha who was only an Office Assistant working in the company and who was not an officer duly authorised to accept summons on behalf of the company did not amount to valid service of summons on the applicant company.

It also accepted the appellants case about the knowledge of the ex parte decree for the first time on 29/07/1975 and hence the application filed in about a weeks time thereafter was held to be within time.

(4) THE High court in its impugned judgment has held :

IT is not in dispute that the person who received the summons in tin office of the company is not a person who is entitled to be served on behalf of the company in accordance with clause (a) of Rule 2 of Order 29 of Civil Procedure Code.

The High court, however, took the view that since Navlakha was an employee of the company sitting in its registered office in Calcutta the summons will be deemed to have been duly served on the company within the meaning of the first part of clause (ft) of Order 29, Rule 2 of the Code. In the opinion of the High court since the learned Additional District Judge did not apply his mind to the provision of law contained in clause {b), it committed a material irregularity and illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction in setting aside the ex parte decree.

(5) IN ou