JUDGMENT : B.K. Ray, J. - This revision is directed against an order restoring a suit under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC at the instance of Defendant No. 2. The suit was filed by the Plaintiff-Petitioner against several Defendants including Defendant No. 2 bearing T.S. No. 333 of 1964 for a permanent injunction in respect of the properties which had fallen to his share in an amicable partition in the year 1932. Defendant Nos. 8, 10, 13, 15 and 16 contested the suit and the rest including Defendant No. 2 who is the opposite party here remained ex parte. After hearing, judgment in the suit was pronounced on 30-9-1969 and the decree was drawn up on 31-10-1969. Defendant No. 2 thereafter filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC (Vide Misc. Case No. 46 of 1959) on 29-10-1969 and this is within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the judgment in the suit itself. 2. The main ground in the petition of Defendant No. 2 is non-service of suit summons on him. According to him, he knew of the suit after its disposal on 26-10-1969 from the Petitioner who gave out that he had obtained a decree. This application was resisted by the Plaintiff-Petitioner on several grounds, viz., that summons in the suit had been duly served on Defendant No. 2; that Defendant No. 2 had knowledge of the suit long before commencement of the hearing and that he had appeared in Misc. Appeal No. 61 of 1966 which had arisen out of the suit itself relating to a matter of interim injunction and had filed vakalatnama in the said Misc. Appeal on 21-6-1966. 3. The Court below, after consideration of the entire evidence or record, has recorded the findings that service of summons on Defendant No. 2 was not made; that Defendant No. 2 by the date of hearing of the suit ex parte against him was aware of the suit and had avoided to appear and contest the same and that the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Order 9, Rule 13 CPC as amended in Orissa does not apply. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. P.C. Misra, learned Counsel for Petitioner urges that the Court below having recorded a finding that Defendant No. 2 had knowledge of the suit before it was taken up for hearing, it should have further held on the evidence on record that there was due service of notice on him (Defendant No. 2) and that the discrepancies in the evidence regarding service of summons as pointed out by the Court below are only irregularities as contemplated in the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Order 9, Rule 13, CPC (Orissa amendment). 5. There is no dispute that once it is held that there has been no due service of summons on Defendant No. 2, the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Order 9, Rule 13, CPC does not come into play and the application of Defendant No. 2 for restoration of the suit is bound to be allowed. There is no question of limitation in the present case, because the application for restoration has been filed within thirty days from the date of judgment in the suit, i.e. 30-9-1969. On reading the evidence led by the parties, I find that the Court below having relied upon certain discrepancies in the evidence of the Plaintiff-Petitioner and that of the process-server has recorded a finding that there has been no service of summons on Defendant No. 2 at all. It is just possible that a different view could have been taken on the said evidence, but once the Court below has recorded a finding on an appreciation of evidence giving reasons for it, I do not think that a case for interference with the said finding u/s 115 CPC can be made out. Section 115 CPC is meant to cover a case where a Subordinate Court without jurisdiction assumes jurisdiction over a certain matter, having jurisdiction refuses to exercise it or exercises the jurisdiction vested in it with material irregularity. The case before me does not come under any of the aforesaid provisions contained in Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. After all, a suit has been restored to file. In a case where a subordinate Court has restored a suit to file after due consideration of the evidence on record and after coming to a finding that there has been no due service of notice, this Court exercising its revisional powers ordinarily does not interfere with the order of restoration. 6. In a case where a subordinate Court has restored a suit to file after due consideration of the evidence on record and after coming to a finding that there has been no due service of notice, this Court exercising its revisional powers ordinarily does not interfere with the order of restoration. 6. Hence, I do not find any merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case. I direct the parties to bear their own costs.