JUDGMENT : S.D. Agarwala, J. This is a revision u/s 115 Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The revisionists are the Plaintiffs in this revision. They have obtained an ex-parte decree in Suit No. 57 of 1977 on 24th April, 1979. Thereafter an application was made by the President of the Sadhan Sahkari Samiti, opposite party No. 1, for setting aside the ex-parte decree on the ground that summons had not been served upon it. 3. The court below accepted this plea of the President of the Society and set aside the ex-parte decree by an order dated 25th April, 1982. 4. Learned Counsel for the revisionists has urged that under Order 29 Rule 2, CPC service on the Secretary of the Society was sufficient in the eye of law and merely because the notices have not been served on the President, the court below had no jurisdiction to set aside the ex-parte decree. 5. Order 29 Rule 2 CPC as amended by U.P. reads as under: Subject to any statutory provision regulating service of prowess, where the suit is against a corporation, the summons may be served- (a) On the secretary or on any director, or other principal officer of the corporation, or (aa) On its corporation pleader in the district where the Court issuing summons is located, if one has been appointed and the appointment has been notified to the District Judge under Rule 10 of Order XXVII, or (b) by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office, or if there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation carries on business. 6. Order 29 Rule 2, CPC quoted above, provides that the summons on a corporation may be served on the Secretary or on any Director or other principal officer of the Corporation. In a suit where only the Corporation is made as a party then according to Sub-clause (a) of Rule 2, summons served on the Secretary, or on a Director or other principal officer of the Corporation would make the service sufficient on the Corporation. This principle would stand modified in a case where the Plaintiff chooses to implead a Corporation through a specific officer of the Corporation. This principle would stand modified in a case where the Plaintiff chooses to implead a Corporation through a specific officer of the Corporation. If a Corporation is impleaded through a specific officer of the Corporation then at least notice should be served on the said officer so that there is no confusion arid an opportunity is given to the Corporation to make a proper defence to an action. 7. In the instant case, the Plaintiff revisionists chose to implead the Sadhan Sahkari Samiti through its President. They did not make the Corporation alone as a party which they could do in law, as the Sadhan Sahkari Samiti has a corporate personality. Once the Plaintiffs chose to serve the notice of the Corporation on a principal officer of the Corporation then the notice for the said Corporation should be served on the said officer. Admittedly, in the instant case, notice was not served on the President of the Sadhan Sahkari Samiti through which the Sadhan Sahkari Samiti was made a party. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Court below acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in setting aside the ex-parte decree passed against the society, as the President of the Society through whom the society had been impleaded had no knowledge of the suit. In the circumstances, the court below was right in holding that once the President of the Society was not served, the ex-parte decree was liable to be set aside. 8. In any case, by the impugned order, the court below has only set aside the ex-parte order. No prejudice has been caused to the revisionists. It will be in the interest of justice that the matter be adjudicated on merits after hearing both the parties. In this view of the matter also, no interference is called for u/s 115 Code of Civil Procedure. 9. In the result, I do not find that any case has teen made out for interference u/s 115, Code of Civil Procedure. The revision is accordingly, dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Revision dismissed.