1. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6.2.2014 passed by the learned Addl. District and Session Judge, No.19, Jaipur City (Sanganer), whereby the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the order dated 22.7.2013, wherein the learned Magistrate had rejected an application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, Rukmani Devi, filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction against the respondent No.1, Jagdish Narayan. Allegedly, summons were issued. According to the order dated 16.1.2010, the learned trial court concluded that the summons have been duly served upon the respondent No.1. Therefore, by order dated 16.1.2010, an ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the respondent No.1. Eventually, by judgment and decree dated 15.12.2010, the case was decreed in favour of the petitioner, Smt. Rukmani Devi. However, subsequently when the respondent No.1 discovered that a decree has been passed against him, he filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. In his application, he pleaded that in fact, no summons were served upon him. According to him, no su