Short Note : 1. The suit was for eviction of the defendcmt from an accommodation and for arrears of rent. The first date of hearing fixed by the Court was 23-12-1974 for which summons was issued. On 23-12-1974, the presiding officer was absent. The Reader adjourned the date to 2-1-1975. As regards service on the defendant, the Reader mentioned that the defendant had refused to accept summons and, therefore, a copy had been fixed at his residence. On 2-1-1975, the presiding Judge accepted the proceedings as was written by the Reader and proceeded ex parte against the defendant. The ex parte evidence was recorded on 29-1-1975 and judgment was pronounced on 30-1-1975. 2. The defendant in his application under Order 9, rule 13, contended that the service report given by the Process Server was untrue. On the date the summons was supposed to have been tendered to him, he was at Sagar, staying in a hotel. In proof of this, the defendant filed his affidavit and the receipt of the hotel charges that he paid. The Courts below did not rely upon the defendant's affidavit, and since no other evidence was produced, the receipt was also disbelieved. Held: The question all the same is, even presuming that the defendant was served for 23-12-1974, was he obliged to appear before the Reader of the Court? If the presiding Judge was absent on 23-12-1974, it was not the Court functioning and the defendant was not obliged to appear before the Reader. He could remain absent in the hope that he would be noticed again. No rule has been shown authorising the Reader to fix a date of hearing nor is there anything on record to show that the Judge had instructed the Reader to fix a particular date. The hearing contemplated was a hearing before the Court i.e., by the presiding Judge. The Reader was only a ministerial officer and could do no judicial function. (AIR 1934 Lahore 984: Hukum Chand v. Mani Shivram Dass relied on). 3. In the absence of the presiding Judge, the Court should be deemed to have been closed for judicial functioning. or say, as if a date had been fixed which happened to be a holiday. The Reader was only a ministerial officer and could do no judicial function. (AIR 1934 Lahore 984: Hukum Chand v. Mani Shivram Dass relied on). 3. In the absence of the presiding Judge, the Court should be deemed to have been closed for judicial functioning. or say, as if a date had been fixed which happened to be a holiday. If a summons were issued for a date which happened to be a holiday the defendant was under no obligation to appear on that day or on the following day to find out for which date the case stood adjourned. The summons could not be treated as a proper summons under Order 5, rule 1, CPC, ( AIR 1964 MP 261 , Nanda Dayaram v. Raja Ram relied on.) That being so, absence of the defendant on 23-12-1974 and on subsequent dates, was absence due to non-service of proper summons. On this count alone, the ex parte decree must be set aside. 4. The contention was the order-sheet dated 2-1-1975 did not indicate that the Court had applied its judicial mind for making a declaration whether or not the defendant should be treated as duly served. The Court merely endorsed the view which the Reader had earlier taken on 23-12-1974 about the service report. The provisions of Order 5, rule 19, CPC, the counsel said, were mandatory insofar as such a declaration by the Court was concerned. This job of declaring the defendant duly served could not be left to a ministerial officer. The counsel relied on the authority of the Madras High Court reported in AIR 1970 Madras 271 (FB), Parasurama v. Annadurai at paras 11 and 12. 5. This contention of the learned counsel must also prevail. The Judge, it seems, did not look into the Process-Server's report, did not care to see if it was supported by an affidavit and even if it was, what made him feel that the report was genuine. The defendant had made a grievance that the report was false He had made a complaint on the administrative side. Should the Court not have examined the Process-Server to know the truth? Before service under Order 5, rule 17 could be accepted as valid, the Judge should have followed the course prescribed under Order 5, rule 19, CPC. A declaration had to be made in specific terms. Should the Court not have examined the Process-Server to know the truth? Before service under Order 5, rule 17 could be accepted as valid, the Judge should have followed the course prescribed under Order 5, rule 19, CPC. A declaration had to be made in specific terms. That is what the latter part of Order 5, rule 19 required. Revision allowed and ex parte decree set aside.