JUDGMENT Niamatullah, J. - This is an appeal from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Saharanpur, refusing to set aside an ex parte decree passed in an appeal in which the present appellant was the respondent. That appeal arose out of a suit brought by her for a declaration that a certain property which she claimed to be hers was not liable to be sold at the instance of the opposite party in execution of a decree obtained by him against her husband. She established her claim in the trial Court which declared that the property in dispute belonged to her and not to her husband. The opposite party preferred an appeal to the lower Court (Subordinate Judge, Saharanpur). A summons was issued to the appellant, who is a pardanashin lady. The processserver's report was to the effect, that the appellant, who is a pardanashin lady, was in the house, that she was called out, but did not answer and that accordingly the summons was handed over to her husband's elder brother, Mohammad Bakhslh, who affixed his thumb mark on the back of the summons. On the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal no one appeared on behalf of the respondent (the appellant in this appeal), and an ex parte decree was passed against her allowing the appeal and dismissing her suit. The appellant made an application under Order 41, Rule 21, Civil P.C. for an order to set aside the ex parte decree. She filed her own affidavit swearing that Mohammad Bakhsh never informed her of the process-server having, delivered a summons; nor did she otherwise come to know of the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal in which she was respondent. Mohammad Bakhsh was not examined on behalf of any party. The opposite party filed a counter-affidavit in which the appellant's allegations were traversed. It is however clear that, a denial of the truth of her allegations by one who had no personal knowledge of the matter is not of any value. The lower Court dismissed her application on the solitary ground that: No reason has been shown on behalf of the appellant why her husband's own brother did not inform the appellant of the date of hearing. 2. That Court did not apply its mind to the question whether in the circumstances of the case service on Mohammad Bakhsh was due service. 2. That Court did not apply its mind to the question whether in the circumstances of the case service on Mohammad Bakhsh was due service. Order 41 Rule 21, provides like Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C. that where an appeal is heard ex parte and the judgment is pronounced against the respondent, the latter may apply for the appeal being reheard, and, if the Court, is satisfied that the notice was not duly served or that the respondent was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Court shall re-hear the appeal. 3. The appellant's contention is that she was not duly served. This contention has force. Order 5, Rule 15, Civil P.C. as amended by this Court, permits service being effected on a male member of a family only: When the defendant is absent or cannot be personally served and has no agent empowered to accept the service of the summons on his behalf. 4. The process-server's report in this Court makes it abundantly clear that the appellant was not absent; she was, inside the house. The learned advocate for the opposite party has strenuously contended that it was a case in which the party could not be personally served. He argues that every pardanashin lady should be considered to be a person who cannot be personally served. It is said that from her position a pardanashin woman cannot appear before the process-server and therefore personal service is impossible. The manner in which personal service is to be effected is mentioned in Order 5, Rule 10, which provides that: Service of the summons shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof. 5. It is argued that unless a process-server can directly approach the lady to be served or rather unless the lady can appear before the process-server, it is impossible for the latter to deliver or tender the summons to her. I am unable to accept these contentions. Summons can be delivered or tendered to a pardanashin lady even though it may not be possible for the process-server to have access to her nor can a pardanashin lady be considered to be a person who cannot be personally served. I am unable to accept these contentions. Summons can be delivered or tendered to a pardanashin lady even though it may not be possible for the process-server to have access to her nor can a pardanashin lady be considered to be a person who cannot be personally served. It is the duty of the process-server to make an attempt to find ways and means of delivering or tendering the summons to the pardanashin lady for whom it is intended. He can very often find some one living with her or in the neighbourhood, male or female, who can take the summons to her. If the pardanashin lady accepts service, it is personal service as contemplated by Rules 10 and 15, Civil P.C. He should in ordinary case obtain the attestation of the witness taking the summons to the pardanashin woman concerned which should also be done in case of refusal by her to accept the summons. If the process-server cannot find any one, male or female, who can take the sum-mops to her, it may be a case referred to in Rule 15, namely that the defendant cannot be personally served. To accept the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant will be to deprive r pardanashin lady of the privilege of personal service of the summons in cases to which she is a party. 6. Coming to the facts of the present case it is not suggested that Mohammad Bakhsh would have declined to take the summons to the appellant. Apparently he was quite willing to do what the process-server would ask him to do. He accepted service and signed it in token thereof. It is perfectly cleat that if everything was fair and. square in this case the process-server, who could not be expected to know all the niceties of law regarding personal service, considered it sufficient to serve it on the male member of the appellant's family. He did not however comply with the requirements of law and the appellant cannot be considered to have been "duly served." 7. The Subordinate Judge was not justified in presuming that Mohammad Bakhsh informed the appellant of the visit of the process-server and of the date fixed for hearing of her case. It is not permissible to have recourse to speculation in a matter of this kind. The Subordinate Judge was not justified in presuming that Mohammad Bakhsh informed the appellant of the visit of the process-server and of the date fixed for hearing of her case. It is not permissible to have recourse to speculation in a matter of this kind. It might well be that the opposite party, who had lost his case in the First Court, desired to have the appeal heard ex parte, and arranged far a service in a manner which may not be calculated to convey information of the pendency of the appeal to her. This is however a pure conjecture, no better or worse than that made by the lower Court. The question whether the appellant was aware of the date fixed in her appeal and was prevented by sufficient cause from, appearing in the case does not arise in view of my finding that the appellant was not duly served. Under Order 41, Rule 21, the Court is bound to set aside an ex parte decree if the respondent satisfies it that the summons was not duly served. 8. The result is that this appeal succeeds. It is accordingly allowed with costs. The order of the lower appellate Court and the ex parte decree are both set aside. The appeal of the opposite party shall be reheard according to law.