The proviso to Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC applies to all cases where there is a failure to observe the procedure for service of summons as laid down under Order V Rule 17, even if the failure amounts to an irregularity.

K. N. SINGH, J. :- This revision is directed against the order of the First Additional District Judge, Allahabad dismissing applicant s revision filed under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The revision came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court. He was of the opinion that since the question involved in the case was important one, which very frequently arises in the courts below, an authoritative decision was necessary to be given by a larger Bench. At the instance of the reference made by the learned Single Judge, the revision has come up before us for hearing.

2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to this revision are that the applicant was a tenant of a house situated in Allahabad of which the opposite party is the landlord. The opposite party filed a suit against the applicant for recovery of arrears of rent and his ejectment before the Court of Judge, Small Causes at Allahabad. On the date of hearing fixed by the court, the applicant-defendant was absent; the Court held service of summons sufficient and decreed the suit of the plaintiff ex parte on 28-9-1972. The applicant filed a restoration application under O. IX R. 13 of the Civil P. C. on the ground that there was no due service of the summons and he had no knowledge of the date of hearing. The trial court dismissed the application holding that the petitioner had knowledge of the date of hearing and he had no sufficient cause for his absence on the date of hearing. The defendant-applicant thereafter preferred revision against the order of the trial court before the District Judge dismissing the restoration application. The revision was dismissed and the findings of the trial court were affirmed. The Additional District Judge held that the applicant had refused to accept the summons and he had full knowledge of the date of hearing fixed in the suit and he had no valid cause or reason for his absence. Aggrieved, the defendant-applicant has filed this revision under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. for setting aside the ex parte decree and orders of the courts below.

3. O. IX R. 13 of the Civil P. C. confers jurisdiction on the court to set aside an ex parte decree if it is satisfied that the summons was not duly served on the defendant or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. In the instant case, the applicant in his restoration application and the affidavit filed in support thereof had asserted that the summons was not duly served on him and he had no knowledge of the date of hearing and, as such, there was sufficient cause for his absence when the suit was called for hearing. The summonses were issued by the trial court to the applicant on his local address as well as at the place of his posting at Mathura as the plaintiff had made a prayer that the summons be served on the defendant at both the addresses. 29th Sept. 1972, was the date fixed for defendant s appearance and hearing of the suit. On 17th Aug. 1972, the process server delivered the summons to the applicant personally in the civil court compound at Allahabad in the presence of two clerks of advocates and the plaintiff s son. The applicant after reading the summons refused to acknowledge it, instead, he returned the same to the process server saying that the summons should be sent to him at his office address at Mathura. The process server made a report to the trial court that the defendant-applicant had refused to accept the summons and he mentioned the names of the witnesses who were present. The trial court held the service of summons sufficient and passed orders for proceeding exparte. On Sept. 30, 1972, the trial court passed the ex parte decree against the defendant-applicant.

4. The defendant-applicant s plea raised in his application for setting aside the ex parte decree that the summons was not served on him and that he had no knowledge of the suit or the date fixed therein was rejected by the courts below. The co