JUDGMENT Sir Knox and Piggott, JJ. - This is an appeal from an order passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Agra, rejecting an application made to him under order IX, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant had in his petition alleged that the summons in the original case had not been duly served upon him. We find on looking at the record that the Additional Subordinate Judge of Agra had issued a summons to the Munsif of Muttra for service on Dwarka Prasad, on the 9th of April, 1910. The date fixed for hearing was the 10th of May, 1910. A process-server subordinate to the Munsif's court at Muttra went to the village where Dwarka Prasad was supposed to be residing. He made a return of the process on the 20th of April and in that return he said that he had effected substituted service under order V, rule 17. The Munsif of Muttra examined the process-server on oath touching his proceedings and declared that summons had not been duly served. With this declaration he ordered the summons to be returned to the Additional Subordinate Judge of Agra. No further steps appear to have been taken before the day appointed for hearing. On the day fixed for hearing the Additional Subordinate Judge took up the case and came to the conclusion, upon what grounds one cannot tell, that service upon Dwarka Prasad had been properly made. He therefore gave a decree ex parte against Dwarka Prasad. In the appeal from the order dismissing the application for re-hearing the appellant takes the plea that the summons was not duly served upon the appellant, and that he had no notice of the suit. 2. It is contended that the return made by the Munsif of Muttra should be accepted as strong evidence that the summons was not duly served, and that the view taken by the Munsif of Muttra was the right and proper view, inasmuch as the serving officer's report shows that Dwarka Prasad was not at the time of the service present in the village and that there was no one authorized to receive summons on his behalf. Our attention was also drawn to the fact that there was evidence to show that Dwarka Prasad had not been to this village for a year or more, and that the plaintiff himself admitted that Dwarka Prasad had not been to the village for four months preceding the service. On the other hand it is contended before us that the Additional Subordinate Judge was the proper court to say whether the service was properly effected or not, and reliance was placed in support of this contention on Romanath Bural Vs. Guggodonandan Sen and Others, (1895) ILR (Cal) 889 . The procedure regarding service of summons is to be found in order V, rules 15 to 23, of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 21 lays down that the summons may be sent by the court from which it is issued to any court which has jurisdiction over the place where the defendant resides. The court receiving the summons is directed by rule 23 to proceed as if the summons had been issued by that court and shall then, by which we understand when the proceedings authorized have been taken, return the summons to the court by which it was issued together with the proceedings, if any, with regard thereto. The method which the court has to adopt in serving processes is governed by the rules contained in order 5, and also such rules as may from time to time be laid down by this court. In accordance with those rules the processes are to be entered in a register kept for the purpose and made over to the process-server. The process-server should carry out service, if possible, in one of the methods prescribed by rule 16 or rule 17. In the present case" he appears to have endeavoured to effect service under rule 16, and as that was impossible, to have adopted the procedure prescribed by rule 17, There is no doubt that he was in error regarding the house upon the outer door of which he affixed the copy of the summons. It was not the house in which the defendant ordinarily resided at that time. But apart from this error his procedure was according to the rule. He returned the process to the court from which he had received the summons with the report of service endorsed thereon. It was not the house in which the defendant ordinarily resided at that time. But apart from this error his procedure was according to the rule. He returned the process to the court from which he had received the summons with the report of service endorsed thereon. The Munsif of Muttra upon the return of the summons together with the affidavit of the serving officer went on under rule 19 to endorse a declaration to the effect that the summons had not been duly served. Appendix 13, form No. 10, which provides for cases in which a summons for another court is to be returned, shows that the procedure of the Munsif was correct. Obviously he is the person who is in the best position to decide whether the process has been duly served or not. The process-server is attached to his court and he should be far better able to judge how far he is or is not telling the truth than a court situate miles away and in whose presence the evidence regarding the service of process is not and cannot with proper regard to convenience be taken. Seeing that in this case the Munsif of Muttra acting with the powers given him by rules 23 and 19 had certified that the process had not been duly served, it was a very serious step for the Additional Subordinate Judge of Agra, without apparently any other evidence before him, to overrule this certificate and to declare that the process had been duly served. We are not prepared to say that there may not be cases in which the court originally issuing the summons may find it necessary to re-open the question of service and to decide thereon. But such cases should be rare, and it appears to us that under such circumstances the court issuing the process should only act upon good and a strong evidence which comes or is brought to its notice, Order 5, rule 23, directs that the court upon receipt of the process from another court shall proceed as if it had full power to carry out the procedure laid down in rule 23. We see no reason why such procedure should be limited to all but the last sentence of rule 19, and why we should read into rule 19 that only the court issuing the process is the court that can declare that the summons has been duly served. It is easy to conceive that such a view of rule 19 may easily lead to unnecessary and roundabout procedure. If the contention were sound, it would mean that the court receiving the summons may upon heaving the affidavit of the process-server come to the conclusion that it is the duty of the process-server to return to the village and make further search or that when a process-server has wrongly omitted to effect substituted service under rule 17 to order the process-server to go back and effect such substituted service. But whatever its opinion, it would not be able to issue the necessary orders, but would have to leave the orders to the court issuing the summons. No advantage is gained by returning the summons to the issuing court and then having it sent back by the issuing court to the second court to carry out a procedure of this kind. With due respect to the view taken in Romanath Bural Vs. Guggodonandan Sen and Others, (1895) ILR (Cal) 889 we are not prepared to follow what is therein laid down. In the present case we are satisfied that the Munsif of Muttra took the right view that the service had nut been sufficient. It follows therefore that under order IX, rule 13, Dwarka Prasad was entitled to have the ex parte order and decree set aside and the case re-heard. We allow the appeal, set aside the order appealed from and direct the Additional Subordinate Judge to re-admit the case upon the file of pending cases and dispose of it according to law. Costs here and hitherto will abide the event.