JUDGMENT In this case it is an-admitted fact that the summons was sent by post and it was received in the registered office of the corporation by the Receipt-clerk who ordinarily received the dak addressed to the corporation. The defendant appellant's witness Parmeshwarlal Ajmera has admitted in paragraph 1 of his statement that the summons received in the office of the corporation was put up before him on 5.5.78 and he was informed that the case is fixed on 9.5.78. On perusal of the summons it is apparent that the date has been written in Hindi while the body of the summons is in English. It appears that there was a misreading about the date as the same was written in Hindi digit in between the body of summons printed in English. But the same was received in the office of the corporation by an authorised agent-Receipt-clerk, dealing with the letters addressed to the corporation hence the service would be deemed to be proper. It is different matter that because of the mention of Hindi digit in the body of summons written in English there may have been some bonafide confusion about the date of hearing. However, the defendant had the knowledge of the suit and, therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted that the service was not proper. Learned counsel for the appellant has, thereafter submitted that 5.5.78 could not be taken to be an effective date of hearing as the Reader was not competent to fix the date of hearing in the absence of the Presiding Judge. . Learned counsel has relied on a case reported in 1991 MPLJ Page 329 (Sushilabai Patel v. Ram Niho) and a case reported in 1992 (1) MPJR SN 28 (Daulatram v. Ishwari Prasad). I am in complete agreement with the view taken by brother Justice R.C. Lahoti and brother Justice S.K. Dubey in the cases reported above. It is an admitted fact that the Presiding Judge was on leave on 1.5.78. It is not known as to on what date learned Presiding Judge resumed duty. The Court-reader was not competent to fix the date of hearing. He was entitled only to adjourn the case simply and, therefore, it was a case of simple adjournment for 5.5.1978. It was incumbent upon the learned Presiding Judge to fix the next date of hearing in the matter. The Court-reader was not competent to fix the date of hearing. He was entitled only to adjourn the case simply and, therefore, it was a case of simple adjournment for 5.5.1978. It was incumbent upon the learned Presiding Judge to fix the next date of hearing in the matter. Instead of doing so, learned Presiding Judge accepted that date to be a date of hearing and proceeded ex parte (It appears that the ex parte evidence was recorded on the same day and ex parte decree was also passed on the same day). Thus, the decree passed on a day which is not date of hearing of the case, cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for respondents has referred to a case reported in 1964 JU SN 78 (Raghuraj Singh v. Kalyan prasad). In that case learned Justice Shri P.R. Sharma, as he then was, has observed that as a matter of common practice if a working day is subsequently declared as a holiday the cases fixed on that day will automatically be taken on the next day and the parties are required to appear on the next date. This is not the case here. 1.5.1978 was a working day of the Court and the Presiding Judge was on leave and, therefore the Court-reader was not competent to fix a date for hearing in the case and, therefore, this case does not help the respondents in any way. Even otherwise if a summons mentions a date for appearance which is a holiday that would not be deemed to be a proper summons ( AIR 1964 MP 261 ). Learned counsel for respondents has referred a case reported in 1962 JLJ 277 and 1958 MPLJ Page 8. Those are criminal cases and they do not help the' respondents in any way. Thereafter learned counsel has referred to a decision M.F.A. 2177 decided on 6.12.1977, (reported in 1978-1-MPWN Note 403 Kasturibaiv. Kuntibai). In that case the non-appearance because of the illness of the applicant was taken to be sufficient cause. That case also does not help the respondents in any way Learned counsel thereafter has referred to 1978-1 MPWN Note 344 (Fakirchand alias Karamchand v. Subhadrabai). That was a case where petition for restitution of conjugal right was filed after inordinate delay of ten years and therefore, the said relief was not granted. That case also does not help the respondents in any way Learned counsel thereafter has referred to 1978-1 MPWN Note 344 (Fakirchand alias Karamchand v. Subhadrabai). That was a case where petition for restitution of conjugal right was filed after inordinate delay of ten years and therefore, the said relief was not granted. Hence this case is also of no help to the counsel for respondents. Learned counsel has also referred to a case reported in 1989 (1) MPWN Note 51 (State Bank of India v. Hiralal). In that case the bona fide mistake about noting the date was demonstated by detailed averment. The same was accepted. Learned counsel thereafter referred a case C.R. No. 240176 decided on 1.12.1976 reported in 1977 MPWN Note 339. This case really helps the appellant. In that case also it has been held that since the Precluding Judge was on leave on the date of hearing and, therefore, applicant was entitled to be informed for the next date of hearing. In view of the discussions above, there appears to be a sufficient cause Jar non-appearance on 5.5.1978 and further that could not be taken to bean effective. date of hearing. As such, the decree passed on that date cannot be sustained. As a result this appeal succeeds. The ex parte decree passed against the defendant-appellant is set-aside. 1991 MPLJ 329 and 1992 (I) MP JR SN28 relied on.