JUDGMENT Parmatma Singh, Member - This revision has been filed against the judgment and order of Sri A.U. Khan, Additional Commissioner. Agra Division, Agra dated 20-9-84 in revision 34 of 1983-84 upholding the judgment and order of Sri S.C. Srivastava, Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Mathura dated 28.12.83. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Prem Pal Singh filed a suit under Section 176 of Act I of 1951 on 5-8-81 alleging, that he had ?th share in the land in suit, that his share be partitioned. The suit was decreed on 30-12-82. Lots were prepared and filed on 21-1-83. The lots were accepted and on 24-2-83 a final decree was ordered to be prepared. Aggrieved by that order Bidha moved an application on 6-8-83 alleging that summons were served forgedly on him, that he came to know of the case on 5-8-83 and prayed that the order for preparation of final decree dated 24-2-83 may be set aside. This application was supported by an affidavit. An objection was filed by Prem Pal Singh on 8-9-83 alleging that Bidha had knowledge regarding the preparation of lots and that summons were served on him, that he knew about the case otherwise also, and that he was taking part in the execution proceedings. He also filed an affidavit, in support of his contentious. Sri S.C. Srivastava, Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Mathura, allowed the restoration on 28-12-83 and the order of preparation of final decree dated 24-2-83 was set aside. A revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner against that order of the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer. The revision was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner on 20-9-84. The instant revision is directed against that order. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 4. A revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner against that order of the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer. The revision was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner on 20-9-84. The instant revision is directed against that order. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the courts below have not considered the provisions of Order Rule 13 C.P.C which enjoins that the ex parte decree shall not be set aside if the defendant had knowledge of the said ex parte decree and had not shown sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date fixed in the case, that application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. should be filed within thirty days of the date of knowledge, that Sidha had knowledge as he had filed an objection in the execution proceedings and had signed the order-sheet that the courts below have, taken a different view that those proceedings were separate proceedings whereas the execution proceedings were related to the case, that Bidha had knowledge of the preliminary decree, that he had moved a joint objection on 19-5-83 for stopping the execution proceedings as they had moved for setting aside the ex parte proceedings beginning with the order dated 21-12-82 to 15-5-83, and this application for restoration was moved on 6-8-83 alleging that the notice for filing objection against the lots was not served on him, and that after 30-12-82 the applicant had no knowledge of the proceedings of the suit, that he came to know about the order dated 24-2-83 on 5-8-83. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that bidha had knowledge of the proceedings and he cannot take advantage of Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. relying on 1980 A.W.C. page 101 and 1977 A.W.C. 698. In the former ruling their Lordships have held that irregularity, in service of summons will not confer any right on the defendant to get the ex parte decree set aside, if the defendant knew or but for his wilful conduct would have known of date of hearing in sufficient time to enable him to appear and answer plaintiffs claim. In the latter ruling ( 1977 AWC 698 ) their Lordships have expressed the similar view. 5. In the latter ruling ( 1977 AWC 698 ) their Lordships have expressed the similar view. 5. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was not applicable to execution proceedings and the restoration application was governed by section 151 C.P.C. Against this the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that if the other provisions of C.P.C are applicable, then the provisions of Section 151 C.P.C. will not apply relying on AIR 1962 SC 217. He has also submitted that it was false to say that the applicant Bidha came to know of the proceedings on 6-8-83. 6. From application (paper no. 9-A/2) dated 19-5-83, it is evident that all the four defendants knew about the orders passed beginning with 21-12-82 to 15-5-83. This application establishes beyond any shadow of doubt that all these defendants including Bidha, had knowledge of the proceedings in the suit. The application was moved on 6-8-83, which was highly belated Proviso to rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under : "Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim." Thus, in view of the above proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., the application for restoration moved by Bidha could not have been allowed as he had knowledge of the proceedings on 19-5-83, while this application was moved on 6-8-83 beyond the permissible period of time. Service of summons, if defective was only an irregularity which could not have vitiated the proceedings in view of the decisions cited above. Thus, the view taken by the learned Additional commissioner was not in accordance with the provisions of law. 7. Consequently, this revision is allowed, and the orders-passed by both the courts below are hereby set aside.