A.P. Misra, J. - Leave granted.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The appellants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte decree. The case of the appellants is that the process was not duly served on them and the process- server played fraud and forged the signatures of the appellants. The trial Court permitted the signatures to be testified by the handwriting expert who gave the same opinion. The trial Court relying upon the opinion of the handwriting expert came to the conclusion that the appellants had not been duly served hence allowed the application and set aside the ex parte decree. Against that the respondent preferred a revision in the High Court. The High Court set aside the findings of the trial Court and held that the appellants have been served. This decision of the High Court is challenged before us.

4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we find that on the question whether there was service on the appellants or not, the High Court fell into error. When the trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence on the record including the opinion of the handwriting expert came to the