( 1 ) IT may be stated at the outset that the original summons issued to the petitioner is not available on the record of the trial Court. So, the crucial question for both the courts below was whether the testimony of the petitioner as AW 1 and his son Saran Jeet Singh, who was the only other witness examined by him to the effect that the petitioner was never served with the summons in the suit should be believed as against the judicial order dated 11. 7. 74 recording that deft. No. 3 had been served with the summons but was not present. On a consideration of the evidence on record both the courts below have given concurrent finding that petitioner No. 1 had been duly served as recorded in the aforesaid order. It may be noticed here that there is also a note in the sheet just below the order dated 4. 5. 74 showing that defts. 1, 2 and 4 had not been served whereas deft. No. 3 had been served personally. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, canvassed with considerable fervour that the courts below have slipped into a grave error in not believing the evidence of the petitioner and his son, both of whom denied receipt of summons in the suit in categorical,