ORDER Dr. T.N. Singh, J. -- 1. Plaintiff/respondent had instituted a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale of land measuring 6.821 Hactare. for a consideration of Rs. 27,000/- contending that earnest money of Rs. 6,000/- had been paid thereunder. That suit was heard and decreed ex parte. Application made to set aside the ex parte decree was also rejected. Hence, this appeal. 2. The short ground which Shri Roman has urged in this appeal is one of pure law and raw law. Counsel has contended that even if in the trial Court that had not been agitated and in the objection, that had not been stated, the defendant/appellant can agitate that contention because that appertains to trial Court's jurisdiction to pass any order at any stage in the suit. Shri Chaturvedi has argued forcefully that by his pleadings the defendant/appellant is estopped. However, that contention, I find hopelessly hollow and difficult to follow. An order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity at all times, at all stages, in all proceedings. One does not have to invariably plead nullity and prove nullity; no pleading is necessary if nullity arises from total want of jurisdiction of the Court to pass the order which may be annulled at any stage by the superior Court. 3. My attention is drawn by Shri Roman to the order passed by the trial Court on 1.2.1982. He has submitted that the entire subsequent proceedings being nullity, the ex parte judgment and decree passed on 5.5.1982 were nullity and, therefore, no application indeed was required to set aside that order. Thus, counsel submits, trial Court's impugned order refusing to set aside that order is also nullity and it is not necessary at all to see whether sufficient cause was shown for belated application. 4. Order 9, Rule 6 (1) (a), CPC, I quote: "6. Procedure when only plaintiff appears.-- (1) Where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, then -- (a) When summons duly served.-- If it is proved that the summons was duly served, the Court may make an order that the suit be heard ex parte;...." Law is clearly stated by legislature laying an inexorable duty on the trial Court thereunder to satisfy requirements contemplated before passing an order for suit to be heard ex parte. Needless to stress the obvious that the order contemplated under Rule 6 (1) (A) is a very serious order and that is to be passed in due compliance with all formalities and requirements contemplated thereunder and the trial Court must bear full responsibility in passing that order with due care and circumspection. The trial Court has to categorically record in passing the order that it had been "proved" that the "summons was duly served". Indeed, discretion being vested for recording that proceedings thenceforth would be ex parte against the defendant, that was saddled with duty that the Court had to satisfy itself that the requirements contemplated had been duly fulfilled. 4-A. On the other hand, in the instant case, the order dated 1.2.1982 is an order passed carelessly, casually, without any sense of responsibility. What is recorded in the order in two sentences is that the registered notice being refused, defendant is being proceeded ex parte. For evidence to be given ex parte, 6.7.1982 was fixed. There is no whisper to be read in the order as to "proof" of service of the summons "duly" on the defendant. Reliance by Shri Roman on the provisions of Rules 2, 10 and 12 of Order 5, CPC is most appropriate. Indeed, in my view, the provision of Rule 19A of Order 5 itself makes it clear that the special method of service by registered post is "in addition to personal service" contemplated under Rules 10 and 12. When there is no satisfaction recorded in the order dated 1.2.1982 that with the summons a copy of the plaint was sent for service as contemplated under Rule 2 of Order 5 and when also no satisfaction is recorded in the order that steps had been taken to serve in the ordinary course as contemplated under Rules 10 and 12, it is not at all possible to sustain as legal and valid the order dated 1.2.1982. 5. For reasons aforesaid, in my view subsequent proceedings in the course of trial of the suit (No. 1-A/80) are to be declared null and void. Evidently, both orders, passed on 5.5.1982 and 28.1.1986 must also fall as those orders are also declared null and void. 6. The appeal is allowed and indeed with costs to be paid as per Schedule. For reasons aforesaid, in my view subsequent proceedings in the course of trial of the suit (No. 1-A/80) are to be declared null and void. Evidently, both orders, passed on 5.5.1982 and 28.1.1986 must also fall as those orders are also declared null and void. 6. The appeal is allowed and indeed with costs to be paid as per Schedule. The trial Court is directed to proceed afresh with the trial, but it shall not be necessary to serve defendant/appellant. His counsel Shri Roman undertakes to instruct his client to appear in the trial Court on 8.5.1991. Further steps shall be taken by parties thereat.