JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a revision against the judgment dated 2-5-72 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad upholding the judgment dated 24-12-69 passed by the Asstt. Collector Ist Class in a suit no. 52 of 1969 under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The plaintiff respondent, Suraj and others, had filed a suit for division of holding claiming 2/6th share. Preliminary decree was passed ex parte against the defendant. Chhotu, on 5-9-62. On 22-12-69 he gave an application that he got only the summon and not the copy of the plaint and, therefore, he cannot file his written statement. This application was rejected on that every date. Thereupon he again moved an application that he had no knowledge of the suit, that he has come to know only on moving this application that an ex parte decree has been passed against him, that the ex parte decree against him be set aside and he may be allowed to file written statement. This application was also rejected on 24-12-69 after hearing the parties. Chhotu has come up in revision against this order. 4. This application was also rejected on 24-12-69 after hearing the parties. Chhotu has come up in revision against this order. 4. The grounds taken in the revision are; firstly that the service by affixation was as fictitious service and the two courts below failed to record any finding on the said question; secondly that the affidavit was filed and the lower appellate court wrongly relied on the argument of the other side that the same would have been filed after the decision of the case; thirdly that the passing of the ex parte decree has resulted in great injustice to the revisionist in as mush as one person Ram Kripal who is not the brother of the revisionist was arrayed as one of the opposite party and a share in the property has been illegally allotted to him; fourthly that in the absence of any counter-affidavit the allegation contained in the affidavit ought to have been believed; fifthly that the courts below have not applied their mind to the facts stated in the restoration application and failed to exercise their jurisdiction in rejecting the same summarily; sixthly that there is no evidence on the record to the effect that the applicant or this any family member was not present when the summons informing the date of the suit is said to have bee affixed; seventhly that the summons has not been properly verified by the serving officer on affidavit nor he was examined on affidavit nor he was examined on oath and as such the service is not a proper service and lastly that the courts below failed to exercise jurisdiction in not giving any finding on the controversy in issue as to whether the serving officer used due and reasonable diligence in finding out the applicant or that the service affixations was genuine or forged. 5. The revision really hinges around the question whether there was due service of the summons on the revisionist Chhotu. The trial court's record shows that the summons issued to Chhotu was returned with the report of the Process that Chhotu had gone to village Sohari and the summon was therefore affixed on his house. Signature of one Ram Narain and thumb impression of Ram Lakhan were obtained as witness for the affixation. The trial court's record shows that the summons issued to Chhotu was returned with the report of the Process that Chhotu had gone to village Sohari and the summon was therefore affixed on his house. Signature of one Ram Narain and thumb impression of Ram Lakhan were obtained as witness for the affixation. Service by affixation in recognised by Rules 74 and 75 of the Revenue Court Manual which read as follows:- Rule 74:- If the person to whom the summons is addressed is absent and process-server after using all due and reasonable diligence cannot find him or his agent or any adult member of his family, he shall affix a copy of the summons to the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house. Rule 75:- If the summons be attached to the door of a house, an acknowledgement of its being posted shall be taken; if in a town from tow respectable neighbours, and if in a village as far as possible from (1) the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan and (2) the Patwari or Chaukidar. It would thus be clear that according to Rule 75 witnesses of the affixation should as far as possible be (one) Pradhan or Up-Pradhan and (two) Patwari or the Chaukidar. In the present case it has not been shown that either of the two witnesses of affixation are either Pradhan or Up-Pradhan and Patwai or Chaukidar. No particular reason also has been given why the acknowledgement of service has not been obtained from the persons mentioned in Rule 75. Proper compliance of Rule 75 is necessary in order to ensure that an unscrupulous person may not be able to manipulate service by getting his own man as witnesses of affixation and thereby succeed in an exparte decree against an unsuspecting defendant. The trial court also did not care either to examine the witnesses of affixation or the Process-server on oath. This also goes to show that service by affixation in the present case is not due service in accordance with law. Further the revisionist Chhotu had filed an affidavit on 24-12-69 to effect that the he has neither received any summons nor had any knowledge of the suit or the ex parte decree against him before 22-12-69. This affidavit has not been controverted by any counter affidavit. Further the revisionist Chhotu had filed an affidavit on 24-12-69 to effect that the he has neither received any summons nor had any knowledge of the suit or the ex parte decree against him before 22-12-69. This affidavit has not been controverted by any counter affidavit. Thus the court was expected to believe an uncontroverted affidavit and has erred in the exercise of jurisdiction in not doing so. Again valuable rights on the land are involved and it is absolutely against the interest of justice that the rights of a person should be decided behind his back. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist has cited, Bondla Ramalingom v. Shiv Bala Siddiah, AIR 1979 Andhra Pradesh 180 which deals with a similar case and the following observations have been made: "It is found in this case that when he went for the first time to defendant he found that he was not in the house and went to Hyderabad. It was his duty to have tried to find out the defendant and serve the summons. The procedure prescribes, "after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant who is absent from his residence at the time when service is sough to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence with in a reasonable time" then only he should affix the summons on the outer door. When he goes for the first time to his house and if he is not found in the house, he has to make effort as to when he would be available next time and must try to serve on him. In this case, it is very clear that the endorsement made by him indicates that he has not followed the procedure laid down under order 5, Rule 17 C.P.C. and the lower court, ignoring the procedure laid down, accepted that there was a due service on the defendant on that basis the lower court proceeded with the case. The defendant in his affidavit stated that he never know that there was a suit filed against him and that he was not aware of any of the proceedings. It was necessary for the lower court to have given notice to the other side and after recording the evidence, if necessary then only the court ought to have decided the case on merits. It was necessary for the lower court to have given notice to the other side and after recording the evidence, if necessary then only the court ought to have decided the case on merits. But the lower court has not chosen to adopt this course and rejected the petition stating it is barred by limitation. The lower court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. Therefore, the order of the lower court is liable to be set aside." 7. It is fully established that there was no due service on the revisionist and that the courts below have failed to exercise jurisdiction by refusing to set aside the ex parte decree. I hereby allow the revision and quash the impugned orders of the courts below.