N.L.Untwalia, J.

1. Siai Sinha, the petitioner in this civil revision application, was added as a defendant in the suit by the court below by order No. 50 dated 20-3-1965 (in the original order sheet 64 seems to be a mistake for 65). Summons was served on this newly added defendant, as would appear from order No. 58 dt. 10-7-1965. The petitioner did not appear and did not file any written statement for about 3 years. He appeared for the first time on 20-8-1968 and filed a petition stating therein that by rumour he had heard that 20th of August. 1968 was the date fixed in the case. He prayed for time to file written statement. The court below by order of the date has refused to permit him to file any written statement and has also not permitted him to be present at, and take part in, the hearing of the suit. He has come up in revision.

2. In this Court a plea is taken that summons was not actually served on the petitioner; it was fraudulently served bala bala. In the petition filed in the court below this plea was not taken either expressly or, as I interpret the petition, even by necessary implication. In my opinion this plea is not correct. Under Order 8, Rule 1 of the Cod