JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. Prakash, the husband-applicant in matrimonial petition - H.M. Case No. 363 of 1991 (Old No. 233 of 1990) filed in the Court of X Additional judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore fora decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(A)(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal presented under Clause 10 of Letter Patent. 2. Tersely stated facts are that the husband filed the petition on 19.9.1990 and obtained the exparte decree of divorce on 26.3.1991. An order to proceed exparte was passed on 23.2.1991. Simt. Ashadevi, the wife, filed the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, registered as Civil Misc. Case No. 15/92, on 10.8.1991 praying to the Court to make an order setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that (a) Summons was not duly served; and (b) She was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on 23.2.1991 on account of non-service and sickness. The Court below rejected the application by the order dated 3.9.1994. Respondent then filed Misc. Appeal No. 456 of 1994 which was allowed on 3.7.1995 and ex parte decree was dislodged with direction ofbi-parte hearing. This order of 3.7.1995 is challenged in this appeal. 3. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that evidence furnished by the respondent is not properly considered and that the order passed by the Court below is erroneously demolished. 4. It is noticed that the learned Single Judge of this Court held that substituted service by publication in daily news paper "NavBharat" for 23.2.1991 was contrary to Order V, Rules 17 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Para 12 of the order). The newspaper does not seem to be the one as laid down in Order V, Rule 20(1 A) inserted by Amendment Act, 1976 circulating in the locality (Village Jethari, District Shahdol) in which the respondent, said to be illiterate, is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided. 5. The learned Single Judge reached the finding of fact that the summons was not duly served. Nothing substantial is urged to upset this finding. 6. 5. The learned Single Judge reached the finding of fact that the summons was not duly served. Nothing substantial is urged to upset this finding. 6. In Kalicharan's case, this Court in 1977 WN I 562 (DB) (Kalicharan Shukla v. State of M.P. and Ors.) held as under : "Thus, the finding that the appellant acted with gross negligence arrived at by the learned Single Judge, with which this Court agrees, is purely finding of fact which cannot be made a subject of challenge in the present appeal. Appeal dismissed." 7. It is provided by Section 104(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure that "no appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section". The Counsel, however, placing reliance on AIR 1979 M P. 76 (DB) (Shrichand v. Tejinder Singh and Others) contended that Letters Patent Appeal is competent against the order of Single Judge setting aside exparte decree under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC as that is "judgment". 8. However, we find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is based on finding of fact about improper service of the summons. That being so, no case for interference is made out. 9. In the result, we decline admission and dismiss this Letters Patent Appeal summarily.