JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the District Judge, Mirzapur dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the Munsif, Mirzapur by which the application of the applicant under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C., was rejected. 2. Brief facts for the purposes of deciding the present writ petition are that the respondents No. 3 Shakuntala Devi filed S.C.C. Suit No. 24 of 1975 for the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The aforesaid suit was decreed ex parte on 16-5-1975 and the delivery of possession was also taken on 6-4-1976. Thereafter an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C., was filed which was rejected by the Munsif. Feeling aggrieved a revision was filed which too has been rejected. It is these two orders which have been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Court having recorded a finding that there was no service under Order V, Rule 17, C.P.C., the ex parte decree should have been set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has urged that a finding of fact has been recorded by the two Courts below that the petitioner had knowledge of the pendency of the suit and, thus, the mere irregularity in the service of summons could not confer jurisdiction on the Court to set aside the ex parte decree. 5. After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties and also perusing the impugned orders and the material filed in the writ petition I am of the opinion that the order does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Court below has recorded a finding of fact on correct appraisal of fact that the petitioner had knowledge of the suit as he had refused to sign the summons after going through the contents of the same. Non-compliance of the provisions of Order V, Rule 17, C.P.C., was merely an irregularity and in view of the proviso added to Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C., the ex parte decree could not be set aside merely on account of any irregularity in the service of summons. 6. Non-compliance of the provisions of Order V, Rule 17, C.P.C., was merely an irregularity and in view of the proviso added to Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C., the ex parte decree could not be set aside merely on account of any irregularity in the service of summons. 6. For the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is dismissed, however, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.