( 1 ) A money suit No. 11b/ 86 was filed in the Court of First Additional judge to District Judge Vidisha on behalf of state Bank of Indore against the petitioner and another, which was fixed for appearance of the defendant on 28. 8. 1986. None of the defendants though served appeared on the date fixed. Consequently-resulting in ex-parte decree against the petitioner and other respondent no. 2 M/s. Mahalaxmi Agency. At the time of execution after about four years of passing the ex-parte decree, petitioner moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which was registered as MJC No. 7/90 and was dismissed vide order dt. 22nd Oct. 1997, against which Civil revision No. 624/98 was filed before the High court. However, it was too dismissed vide order dt. 6. 8. 98 of this court. The present review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC has been presented against the aforesaid order of this Court on the ground that the mandatory provision under Order 37 Rule 2 (2) CPC was overlooked while rejecting the revision. petition.

( 2 ) IT is not the case of the petitioner that the summons was not served on him. What is disputed is that the p