Ordinarily I would not have interfered with the impugned judgment and decree of the Court below on the ground of non service of summons of suit on the appellant. According to me, in that case the remedy for the appellant was to file an application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the exparte decree against her on the ground of non-service of summons. However, in the present case I find that without following the proper procedure the Court directed issue of summons by ordinary course and by registered post simultaneously. The summons by ordinary course was not returned, but on the basis of postal endorsement about refusal to accept the notice, the Court below held the service good and proceeded to pass an exparte decree after proceeding exparte against the appellant and after recording exparte evidence of the respondent.

Before I proceed to deal with the relevant provisions about service of summons etc., I may point out that on 20.11.1989, the Court below was pleased to direct registration of the case. Simultaneously it was ordered that summons by registered post and through Court be issued against the appellant. On the next date of hearing, i.e., on 9.1.19