Proper service of summons is crucial under the CPC, and failure to comply can render an ex parte decree invalid.

1. This Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against order dated 4th of October, 2006 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Budgam vide which the application of the appellant seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree as also condonation of delay application were rejected by one composite order.

2. A civil original suit was instituted by respondent No.1 against the appellant Ali Mohammad Haroon and some other persons for recovery of amount of Rs. 3,72,867.95 (rupees three lacs seventy two thousand eight hundred sixty seven and ninety five paise only) before this Court. The suit was transferred to the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Budgam. An ex parte decree was passed on 25th of June, 2001 in favour of the respondents (plaintiffs) and against the appellant (defendant) for an amount of Rs. 3,72,867.95 (rupees three lacs seventy two thousand eight hundred sixty seven and ninety five paisa only) with interest at the rate of l4'% per annum pendente lite and future interest along with costs.

3. It appears that application seeking condonation of delay was filed by appellant before learned Principal District, Judge Budgam and along with application seeking cancellation and setting aside of the decree dated 25th of June, 2001 was also filed. In both the applications, it is pleaded by the appellant that in 1989, when the Kashmir valley was ushered into abnormal circumstances, he was forced to leave his house at Azad Basti Natipora and migrated to Delhi. It is further pleaded that from the year 1989 till date of the filing of application the appellant continued to be the resident of Delhi. In the application, he has referred to Electronic Election Card issued by Government of Delhi where the address of the appellant is shown as C - 6 Ghonda Extension - C Block, Yemna Vihar, New Delhi. It is further pleaded in the application that the appellant, in the year 1981, purchased a new Ford Chasis for an amount of Rs. 2,65,000.00 (rupees two lacs sixty five thousand only) and Rs. 60,000.00 (rupees sixty thousand only) was spent on the fabrication of the body of the Chasis. Appellant has secured financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 2,12,000.00 (rupees two lacs and twelve thousand only) and he has been making payment to the bank in liquidation of the said loan amount. It is further pleaded in both the applications that appellant has no information about the institution of the suit against him filed by the respondent No.1 for recovery of amount as he has not received any notice from the Court. In the application, it is pleaded that appellant would send payment in installments to the bank through bank draft from Delhi. It is further pleaded in paragraph - 4 of the said application that on 28th of March, 2004, appellant came to attend the marriage ceremony in the house of in - laws of his son at Batamaloo where he was handed over a letter dated 20th of January, 2004 by one Ghulam Rasool Haroon issued by respondent No. 1 along with copy of decree sheet. It is further pleaded that on the said date appellant learnt about the passing of the ex parte decree against him for the first time. The appellant filed an application seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree passed against him which application was filed on 5th of April, 2004. The appellant also filed an application seeking condonation of delay for filing of the above referred application on 5th of April, 2004.

4. The case of appellant as set up in the application is that he did not receive any notice for institution of the suit having been issued against him from the trial Court as he had shifted to Delhi and was not living at the address shown in the suit.

5. On issuance of notice resp