( 1 ) APPELLANT is contesting ex-parte decree dated 1. 9. 2000 passed in respondent s Suit No. 2063/98. For this he had filed two applications IA Nos. 3608-09/2001- one for condonation of delay and the other for setting aside of the ex-parte decree which stand rejected by the impugned order dated 9. 11. 2001. Hence this appeal.

( 2 ) THE only issue involved is whether or not summons were validly served on appellant under Order 29 Rule 2 CPC. Ld. Single Judge has held that service of summons was valid but appellant disputes this.

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS filed Suit No. 2603/1998 showing appellant s (defendant) address its corporate office in Haus Khas, Delhi instead of its registered office at Bhiwadi in Rajasthan. Summons were issued by the Joint Registrar on 5. 10. 1998 and were eventually served on some employee of appellant at the Hauz Khas corporate office on 17. 3. 1999. The Process Server submitted his report in this regard culminating in order dated 20. 8. 1999 taking ex-parte proceedings against appellant. This was followed by the ex-parte judgment and the decree on 1. 9. 2000 and the consequent execution by the execution Petition No. 23/2001.

( 4 ) APPELLANT filed the two applications for condonation of delay and for setting aside the exparte decree on the plea that summons were not validly served on it under Order 29 Rule 2 CPC. The company contended that its authorised officer was one Mr. K. C. Joshi who was posted at Bhiwadi ;in Rajasthan and that non else had any authority to receive the summons. Moreover, the summons could only be served at its registered office at Bhiwadi and service of these at the corporate office was not a valid service.

( 5 ) LD. SINGLE Judge over-ruled all this and held:-

"in the present case, summons for 9. 7. 1999 were sent to defendant at Corporate Office Hauz Khas. It was clearly pointed out in the summons that service is to be effected through Managing Director/director/secretary or Principal Officer of company. Thus the mode of service as pointed out on the summons itself was as prescribed in clause (a) of Rule 2 of Order XXIX CPC either by service to be effected on Secretary/director or Principal Officer of the corporation. Summons were duly served in the Corporate Office of the company 26th March, 1999, which was received by the person concerned under his signature along with seal of the company without raising any objection about his authority to receive the summons. For compliance of Order XXIX Rule 2 CPC, it is sufficient to address the summons in the name of defendant and simultaneously specifying the mode of service i. e. service to be effected through Managing Director//secretary or Principal Officer. In the circumstances, I think summons were duly served on the defendant in accordance with order XXIX rule 2 CPC. "

( 6 ) L/c for appellant has reiterated his stand that there was no valid service of summons on the appellant as these were not served on the company s registered office under Order XXIX Rule 2 CPC. He has also invoked the aid of Supreme Court Judgment in Shalimar Rope Works Ltd. Vs. Abdul Hussain and Ors. (1980 SC 1163) to suggest that non-service of summons on the unauthorised officer of the company was fatal and warranted setting aside of the ex parte decree.

( 7 ) L/c for respondent Mr. Gagan Gupta has on the other hand distinguished the Supreme Court Judgment on the plea that it dealt with a situation prior to 1976 amendment in Order 9 Rule 13 which provided that an ex-parte order was not liable to be set aside on the ground of some irregularity in the service of summons when the court was satisfied and the Defendant had notice of the next date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear on that date.

( 8 ) THE only issue that falls for consideration is whether service of summons on appellant s corporate office was valid and whether it was mandatory to serve it on the company s registered office only under Order 29 Rule 2.

( 9 ) THE relevant provisions of Orde