JUDGMENT : KNOX, J. Musammat Ram Keti, who was arrayed as a defendant in a suit brought by Shib Charan Das and against whom an ex parte decree had been passed, has filed an application to set aside the decree on the ground that no summons was ever served upon her and that she had no notice of the date fixed for the hearing of the case. The learned Subordinate Judge, before whom this application came, refused to grant it. He held that there was no satisfactory evidence on the record to show that Musammat Ram Keti had no knowledge of the suit. Her husband, her son, and her father-in-law were defendants along with her and all of them contested the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge said that from the record it appears that the applicant had notice of the summons and that it was held by his predecessor that she wanted to evade notice. It appears that the record does not bear out what is here set out. Summonses were issued to Musammat Ram Keti and to others. The peon, who was charged with the service of the summons, on his return, gave it as his opinion that Musammat Ram Keti was either evading service or was away at Delhi. The affidavit which he filed in court, does not show what action he took in the way of serving the summons. It stops short at this inference. On the reverse the summons shows that it was considered served on Angan Lal. But there is nothing whatever said regarding service on Musammat Ram Keti. The service of a summons or of a notice upon a person, is a very important step and the law very properly requires that the action of the peon, charged with the service, should be set out in full and be supported by his affidavit. Until this has been done the summons cannot be considered to have been sufficiently served. In the present case, had the serving officer gone on to say, “I handed the summons to so-and-so, a male member of the family residing with the lady,” or set out some other act indicating service, it would be different. But as the record stands, we cannot hold that the service upon Musammat Ram Keti was sufficient and that she had proper notice of the date on which she was required to appear in court. But as the record stands, we cannot hold that the service upon Musammat Ram Keti was sufficient and that she had proper notice of the date on which she was required to appear in court. We, therefore, set aside the order, allow this appeal and direct that the case shall go back to the Subordinate Judge with instructions to place it upon his file of pending cases and dispose of it according to law. Costs will follow the event.