Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The appellants are defendants who have preferred this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (t) of the CPC calling in question legality, validity and correctness of order dated 27-3-2002 (impugned order) passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur in Misc. Civil Suit No.47/1999 by which the defendants' application under Order 41, Rule 21 read with Section 151 of the CPC and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 4-2-1997, have been rejected.

2. Essential facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under:-

2.1. Original plaintiff Rohit Kumar filed a suit for specific performance of contract against defendants Ghasiram and others registered as Civil Suit No.7-A/1985 in the Court of 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur. The suit was heard ex parte and decreed ex parte in favour of the then plaintiff Rohit Kumar on 4-2-1997. Ultimately, ex parte judgment was passed and the suit was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against the ex parte judgment and decree, Rohit Kumar, the then plaintiff, filed first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in which the present defendants were declared ex parte by holding that they have refused to accept the summons (notices) issued by the Court and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were set aside by judgment dated 2-12- 1997 and the appeal was allowed.

2.2. Being aggrieved against the judgment deciding the appeal ex parte and allowing the appeal ex parte, the appellants/defendants opted and moved an application under Order 41, Rule 21 read with Section 151 of the CPC for rehearing/readmission of the appeal. The appellate court noticed the respondents herein on the said application and heard the matter, and reply was filed and thereafter, only on the basis of arguments, the application was heard and decided and that application was rejected.

2.3. Questioning that order, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants under Order 43, Rule 1 (t) of the CPC which was registered as M.A.No.451/2002. That appeal was heard and allowed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 3-9- 2013 which has passed order in this instant miscellaneous appeal directing the first appellate Court to expedite the case and decide the same as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from that date.

2.4. Against the said order dated 3-9-2013 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in this instant appeal, the respondents preferred Civil Appeal No.8137/2014 (Shashi Bhushan and others v. Tarabai and others) before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by its order dated 25-8-2014, set aside the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court and remitted the matter to this Court for its decision on merit afresh. This is how the matter is before me.

3. Mr. Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants, would submit that the learned District Judge is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application under Order 41, Rule 21 of the CPC ignoring the fact that the appellants were not duly served as they were said to have refused to accept the notices/summons, but no affidavit as required under Order 5, Rule 18 of the CPC was filed by the serving officer nor the serving officer was examined under Order 5, Rule 19 of the CPC, as the serving officer has not filed affidavit in Form 11 of Schedule I of the CPC and the provisions of Order 5 Rules 17 and 19 of the CPC are mandatory in nature. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

4. Mr. Roop Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs, would submit that the defendants were having knowledge of the decree and they were duly served, they deliberately did not appear before the appellate Court and the process server has also filed his affidavit before the competent authority, duly executed in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 139 of the CPC, and therefore the first appellate Court i