JUDGMENT S. Mubarak Hasan, M. - This is a second appeal against the order dated April 28, 1969 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur in appeal against the order dated July 10, 1968 passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Azamgarh in case under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. Plaintiff filed suit under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against Bhajan. The suit was decreed ex parte against Bhajan on August 21, 1967. On October 25, 1967, Bhajan applied for setting aside the ex parte decree alleging that he lives in Bombay and that no summons was served on him. He also alleged that a letter was received by him in Bombay a week back and then he came to know about the ex parte decree. An affidavit was filed in support of the application. Plaintiff filed objection disputing the allegations of Bhajan. 3. On July 10, 1968, the trial court dismissed the restoration application filed by Bhajan. The trial court held that no proper service was effected on Bhajan who admittedly lived at Bombay. It, however, observed that the service was affected on the son of Bhajan who was the adult male member of the family and, therefore, service was sufficient. 4. On April 28, 1969, the Additional Commissioner affirmed the order passed by the trial court. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that admittedly Bhajan lived at Bombay and his son Ramdhari on whom service was effected was not residing with him Bhajan. He contended that the service on Ramdhari will not be deemed to be legal service on Bhajan as contemplated under order 5, rule 15, Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, the ex parte decree against Bhajan should have been set aside. He further contended that the courts below erred in rejecting the application of Bhajan for setting aside the ex parte decree, He placed reliance on the case Gul Mohammad v. Mul Chand and other A.I.R. 1933 Lah. 797 in which it was held that:- Where a service of summons to father was effected on his son in the father's absence but the son was not residing with the father. Held: that the summon was not duly serviced on the father and that the appeal should be reheard." 6. 797 in which it was held that:- Where a service of summons to father was effected on his son in the father's absence but the son was not residing with the father. Held: that the summon was not duly serviced on the father and that the appeal should be reheard." 6. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that summons was sent to Bhajan on the address which was given in the plaint. He further argued that on the basis of summons, Bhajans son Ramdhari appeared and filed written statement but subsequently absented himself. He contended that service on Ramdhari will be deemed to be sufficient service on Bhajan. Lastly, he argued that the there is no illegality in the order passed by the lower appellate court and, therefore, the second appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel of the parties and have perused the record. Order 5, rule 15, Civil Procedure Code. provides that: "Where service may be on male member of defendants family. - Where in any suit the defendant cannot be found and has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, service of the summons on his behalf, service may be made on any adult male member of the family of the defendant who is residing with him." 8. Explanation - A servant is not a member of the family with the meaning of this rule. In the present case, Bhajan was admittedly residing at Bombay and his son Rajdhari was not residing with him. Thus service on Ramdhari will not be deemed to be sufficient service on Bhajan as contemplated under order 5, rule 15, Civil Procedure Code. The view of the courts below that service on Ramdhari will deemed to be sufficient service on Bhajan is not correct. I, accordingly, set aside the ex parte decree dated August 21, 1967 and the order dated July 10, 1968 passed by the trial court and the order dated April 28, 1969 passed by the lower appellate court and allow the restoration application filed by Bhajan. Appeal is allowed with costs in the light of the above observation.