J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 21. 4. 1988 passed by the learned City Civil Judge (court No. 5), Ahmedabad rejecting Civil Misc. Appn. No. 417/88 for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 4. 1. 1988 in civil suit No. 59/85. ( 2 ) APPELLANT No. 1 is widow of and appellant No. 2 is the son of deceased chandrakant Chhaganlal Gandhi who who running travel business and who was the sole proprietor of M/s. Vijay Travels. Chandrakant Chhaganlal Gandhi expired on 7. 6. 1983. After the death of Chandrakant Gandhi, appellant No. 1- widow was looking after the said business. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the case of the appellants, they were surprised when the court bailiff informed on 20. 2. 1988 that a decree for an amount of Rs. 15,027-19 was to be executed pursuant to an order passed in Execution application No. 66 of 1988 filed by the respondent-original plaintiff. The appellants found that the suit was filed and it was decided ex-parte as they were never served with any summons. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,027-19 under protest and also made an application to the registrar, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad on 20. 2. 1988, and submitted an application on 22. 2. 1988 requesting the court not to permit the decree holder to withdraw the said amount deposited. ( 4 ) THE appellants filed Civil Misc. Application No. 417 of 1988 for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 4. 1. 1988 passed in civil suit No. 59 of 1985. The appellants case is that they were never served with any summons and, therefore, the ex-parte decree passed is illegal. The appellants had also filed Misc. Application No. 230 of 1988 for condonation of delay in filing the above application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Evidence was led in the aforesaid Misc. application No. 230 of 1988 and the said application was granted by consent and the evidence recorded therein was treated as evidence recorded in Civil Misc. application No. 407 of 1988. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the learned Advocates of parties the Trial Court was pleased to pass the impugned judgment and decree on 21. 4. 1988 rejecting the Civil Misc. Application no. 417 of 1988. application No. 407 of 1988. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the learned Advocates of parties the Trial Court was pleased to pass the impugned judgment and decree on 21. 4. 1988 rejecting the Civil Misc. Application no. 417 of 1988. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the appellants have filed this appeal. ( 7 ) AFTER having examined the facts and circumstances and the relevant provisions of law, this court has no hesitation in finding that the present appeal is meritless and is required to be dismissed. The Trial Court while rejecting the application for seting aside the ex-parte decree has considered the evidence and the relevant proposition of law. The trial Court has the read bare discussed the evidence in paras 6, 7 and 8 of the judgment. This court has found that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court and the view ultimately arrived at by the Trial Court are quite justified and are required to be affirmed. It is found from the documentary evidence on record that the summons of the original suit was served on the appellants as required by law. The bailiff who had served the summons had also fully supported the case of the plaintiff. The bailiff in his evidence at Ex. 28 has stood the test of his searching and severe cross-examination by and on behalf of the appellants. Nothing has been, successfully, pointed out from his cross-examination which would warrant any doubt about the authenticity of his evidence. Bailiff is an officer of the court who has no axe to grind. There is no allegation of mala fides against him. ( 8 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove this court is satisfied that the order passed by the Trial Court is fully justified. There is no any illegality. No preversity or misreading of evidence is successfully shown. This court, therefore, agrees with the ultimate conclusion recorded by the Trial Court. ( 9 ) SINCE this court agrees broadly with the reasons and accepts the ultimate conclusion, it would not be necessary to reiterate all the grounds on which the impugned order is passed. In the opinion of this court, this appeal is meritless and is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. .