P. N. Nag ( 1 ) BY this application the applicant/union of Indiahas sought for setting the ex parte decree dated 4. 4. 1991 passed in Suitno. 3169/90 on the ground that -XEN. Construction Division-XIII,o. P-W. D-, who has a necessary party to the suit, was not made a party tothe suit. Only the Secretary to the Ministry of Urban Development wasmade a party to the suit. Summons on behalf of the Ministry of Urbandevelopment were received by a clerk who was influenced by the contractorm/s. Krishan Kiimnr Shyam Lal Bansal with a view to ensuring that theaward which is under challenge will be made rule of the Court and that thedepartment is taking stern action against the said clerk. ( 2 ) IN this case the award has been made rule of the Court as noobjections to the award have been filed and the period of limitation isover. No error apparent on the face of the record has been shown. ( 3 ) THIS ground is wholly misconceived. XEN is not a necessary party. Under Article 300 of the Constitution of India, the Government of Indiamay sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India, as a Juristicpersonality. Union of India was a party to the proceedings and whenunion of India was served through the Secretary to the Ministry of Urbandevelopment, this was a proper service on the Union of India. I am alsosupported by a case Ajvinder Stngh Bugga v. Union of India, reported in1992 R. L. R. (Note) 37, wherein it was held that under Section 79 andorder 27 of Civil Procedure Code summons in the case have to be sent to the Secretaryto the Government or its authorised officer and in that case the summonswere sent to the Secretary Government of India and were duly served on4. 3. 1991. Executive Engineer was not an authorised officer and it was notnecessary to send the summons to him. ( 4 ) NEXT contention that. contractor has managed to get the serviceeffected on the clerk is also not tenable. Such averment had been madeon 20. 11. 1991 and the decree was passed on 4. 41991. it. has not beenshown what stern action has the Government taken against the clerk. ( 4 ) NEXT contention that. contractor has managed to get the serviceeffected on the clerk is also not tenable. Such averment had been madeon 20. 11. 1991 and the decree was passed on 4. 41991. it. has not beenshown what stern action has the Government taken against the clerk. It has also not been stated in the application as to what is the name ofthe clerk against whom the action is being taken by the Government forthe alleged lapse. Further, it has also not been explained in the applicationas to who is the officer responsible for receiving the summons on behalf ofthe Ministry and as to why such summons have not been received by thatofficer and why clerk alone is being held responsible. To my mind. such aground taken by the applicant is only with a view to make out a ground forsetting aside the so called ex parte decree. ( 5 ) FURTHERMORE, this application has been filed after 205 days andno application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation ofdelay for setting aside the ex parte decree has been filed. The applicationis, therefore, hopelessly bared by time and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.