Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner was a defendant in Title Suit No. 79 of 1965 filed by opposite Party No. 1. Opposite Party No. 2 was another defendant in the suit. The suit was heard ex parte and a preliminary decree was passed on 19th April, 1956. Thereafter, steps for preparation of final decree were taken and final decree was passed on 5-10-1966. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for setting aside the ex parte decree, preliminary as well as final, passed against him on the allegation that he learnt about the decision in the suit on the 4th April, 1967 for the first time. The application was filed four days later on the 8th April, 1967.

2. The case of the opposite party No. I plaintiff is that the petitioner had full knowledge of the suit and summons was duly served on him on 27th July, 1965. The date of knowledge mentioned by the petitioner was also denied.

3. Both the courts below have decided the points against the petitioner and rejected his application for setting aside the decree. He has thereafter moved this Court by the present civil revision application.

4. Mr. Ali Ahmad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to the nature of the summons, which is for settlement of issues, served on the petitioner on 27th July, 1967 and has contended that even assuming that the finding of the Court below about the service of summons be correct, the suit could not have been heard and disposed of without fresh summons for the final disposal of the suit being served on the petitioner. The summons issued and served on the petitioner on 27-7-1965 was for settlement of issues only and the argument is that the trial Court was not authorised to proceed to judgment in absence of the petitioner without serving fresh summons for the final disposal of the suit.

5. It will be necessary to take into account the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure and its various provisions for consideration of the point. Order V deals with the issue and service of summons and the provision regarding issue of summons to the defendant to appear and answer the claim made in the plaint is dealt with in Rule 1, Rule 5 lays down that at the time of issuing the summons, the Court shall determine whether it shall be for the settlement of issues only or for final disposal of the suit. Rule 1 does not distinguish between the two kinds of summonses contemplated in Rule 5 and the provision of Rule 1 applies to both kinds of summonses. The provision of Rule 2 is also similar and states that every summons shall be accompanied by a copy of the plaint for if so permitted, by a concise statement). There is no provision anywhere in the body of the Code saying that fresh summons for the final disposal of the suit shall be issued after summons for settlement of issues has been served. On the other hand, Rule 1 of Order XV of the Code says that where at the first hearing of a suit it appears that the parties are not at issue on any question of law or of fact, the Court may at once pronounce judgment. By the expression first hearing of the suit, the day for the appearance of defendant fixed under Rule 5 of Order V of the Code is meant and in a case where summons has been issued for settlement of issues only, the date mentioned in the summons is the first date of hearing of the suit. Where in a case, the defendant does not appear in answer to the summons for settlement of issues served on him, it will be open to the Court under Order XV, Rule 1 of the Code to dispose of the suit on the date mentioned in the summons. The provision of Order IX, Rule 1 is also relevant in this regard, which says that on the date fixed in the summons the party shall be in attendance at the Court house in person or through lawyers and the suit shall then be heard unless the hearing is adjourned to a future date. No distinction in this rule is made between summons f