CHAUDHRY ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated 3. 4. 1992 by which the application of the respondents for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 5. 5. 1990 was allowed. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 19,000. 00 against Shri N. K. Narula. This suit was contested by the defendant. During the pendency of the suit, defendant died. In the suit, he was being represented by Mr. J. L. Jain, Advocate. On 27. 10. 1988, Mr. Jain informed the court that about 10 days ago the son of the defendant had informed him that the defendant had expired. On that day the court directed the petitioner to take appropriate steps for substituting the L. R. S of the defendant. The petitioner, on 3. 3. 1989, moved an application for bringing on record the L. R. S of the defendant i. e. the wife and son of the deceased. Notice of this application was issued to the proposed L. R. S for 9. 5. 1989 which were returned with the following report of the postal authorities - "repeated attempts were made but the addressee was not found available". On 9. 5. 1989 the court observed that the L. R. S were not served and issued fresh notice for 4. 9. 1989. On 11. 5. 1989 me plaintiff moved an application under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking direction from the court for serving the L. R. S by way of substituted service. On 12. 5. 1989 the court allowed the application and directed that the L. R. S be served by publication in the "statesman . A citation was issued in the statesman for appearance on 4. 9. 1989. On 4. 9. 1989 none appeared on behalf of the L. R. S and the court observed that the defendants had failed to appear despite service by publication and as such they were proceeded ex parte. The matter was fixed for ex parte evidence on 20. 11. 1989. Thereafter the court passed an ex parte decree on 5,5. 1990. ( 3 ) THE petitioner made an attempt to execute the decree. Meanwhile an application was filed by the respondents under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte decree. The matter was fixed for ex parte evidence on 20. 11. 1989. Thereafter the court passed an ex parte decree on 5,5. 1990. ( 3 ) THE petitioner made an attempt to execute the decree. Meanwhile an application was filed by the respondents under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte decree. It was alleged in the application that the decree was obtained by the petitioner by playing fraud on the court. Summons were never served upon the applicants nor were the applicants aware about the pendency of the case or any application to bring them on record. They came to know only on 7. 5. 1991 when a court bailiff came to the premises of the applicants to execute the decree. It was further stated that the deceased died at Panchkula in a very precarious condition on 7. 8. 1988. He was penniless and virtually a pauper. After his death the applicants i. e. his wife and son did not live at the house and were residing with the mother of the wife of the deceased at Panchkula. They came to know about the decree on 7. 5. 1991 when it was sought to be executed against them. Thereafter they contacted the counsel and moved the application. ( 4 ) THE application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the applicants were duly served in the application and also they were aware of the pendency of the proceedings and they had full knowledge about the pendency of the case/they have been avoiding to receive the notices. ( 5 ) THE trial court by order dated 3. 4. 1992 allowed the application of the respondents under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and set aside the ex parte decree dated 5. 5. 1990. Against this order the petitioner has moved this court by way of Civil Revision Petition. ( 6 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents had full knowledge about the proceedings and they were avoiding to accept notice and summons issued by this court on various dates. They were living at the same address at Panchkula. On the other hand it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the respondents had no knowledge about the application filed by the petitioner for bringing them on the record. They were living at the same address at Panchkula. On the other hand it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the respondents had no knowledge about the application filed by the petitioner for bringing them on the record. ( 7 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that there was nothing on the record to suggest that the applicants had notice of the date of hearing or they were duly served in the application. ( 8 ) THE report of the postal authorities on the notices issued to the respondents at their Panchkula address was that, "despite repeated attempts, the addressees were not found available". On this report the court ordered for effecting service by substituted means. In my opinion the court was not justified in ordering substituted service as the provisions of Order 5 Rule 20 Civil Procedure Code were not satisfied. ( 9 ) THERE was no material on the record to indicate that the respondents were keeping out of the way for the purpose of a voliding service. In my opinion the trial court was justified in holding that the respondents were not duly served. ( 10 ) THERE is another aspect of the matter which escaped the notice of the court. The notice to the respondents was issued only in the application for bringing them on the record. Assuming for the sake of argument that they were served in this application and they did not appear, the court could proceed ex parte in the application and made an order for bringing them on record. After the court had allowed the application, the petitioner was required to amend the plaint and implead the L. R. S in the plaint. Thereafter the court was required to issue summons in the suit. This was not done. As the respondents were not impleaded in the suit, no summons in the suit were issued for the service of the respondents. Order 9 Rule 6 Civil Procedure Code provides that where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing and the summons were duly served, the court may make an order that the suit be heard ex parte. On 4. 9. Order 9 Rule 6 Civil Procedure Code provides that where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing and the summons were duly served, the court may make an order that the suit be heard ex parte. On 4. 9. 1989 the suit was not listed before the court for hearing. Only the application of the petitioner for impleading the L. R. S of the deceased was listed for disposal. The court could not pass an order for proceeding ex parte in the suit Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code also provides that in any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the court, by which the decree was passed, for an order to set aside it and if he satisfies the court that the summons were not duly served when the suit was called on for hearing the court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him. The respondents were not served with the summons in the suit. The suit was also not called on for hearing on 4. 9. 1989. In view of this I am of the opinion that the ex parte decree passed against the respondents was tainted with illegality. The trial court was bound to make an order for setting aside the ex parte decree. The trial court was justified in allowing the application of the respondents under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 5. 5. 1990. ( 11 ) I see no force in this Revision Petition and is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. ( 12 ) THE parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 23. 8. 1993. Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.