M.S.Liberhan, J.

1. Relevant facts for the decision of this revision petition are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) got an exparte decree of ejectment against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) on 14.10.1978. The respondent applied for setting aside the exparte ejectment order on the grounds that he was not personally served and the petitioner got a substituted service effected in collusion with the process-server and the proceedings were kept concealed, as such there was no due service.

2. The petitioner controverted the said facts and contended that the respondent had a knowledge of the proceedings pending, inasmuch as the respondents mother was living in the same house in which the respondent was living, she had received the summons by registered post and in spite of that she did not appear either in her personal capacity or as guardian of the minors. The Court-guardian was appointed. The Court-guardian also informed her with respect to the pendency of the ejectment proceedings under postal certificate. In spite of that she did not appear. It was further contended that the application for setting aside the exparte eje