JUDGMENT N. K. Bhattacharyya, J.: Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Kalidas Basu appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Binay Krishna Das. Noone is appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. Considered the materials on record. 2. By this revision the landlady plaintiff petitioner has challenged Order No. 29 dated 26th July, 1994 passed by the learned Munsiff, 2nd Court, Howrah, in Miscellaneous Case No. 126 of 1983, arising out of Title Suit No. 148 of 1981, whereby the learned Munsif allowed the application of the defendants opposite parties, made under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code. of Civil Procedure. 3. The short fact of the case is that the plaintiff brought a suit for eviction against the defendants from the suit premises on 6th May, 1981 and the same was registered as Title Suit No. 148 of 1981 in the court of the learned Munsif, 2nd Court Howrah, In the plaint the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 has been described as minors being represented by their natural guardian mother Srimati Bibharani Chakraborty, widow pf late" Harendra Nath Chakraborty. Curiously enough, on the face of such statement in the plaint that those two minors were represented by their mother and natural guardian Srimati Bibharani Chakraborty, the court by its order No. 1 dated 6.5.81, while registering the suit, passed an order for service of notice upon the minors defendants and their natural guardian: mother for showing cause why a guardian should not be appointed for the said minors and by the next date Le. on 19th June, 1981 by order No. 3 one Debabrata Bhattacherjee was appointed a Court Guardian on behalf 6f the minors. The suit was decreed ex parte on 14th December, 1981. It has been alleged by the defendants in the petition under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC that the plaintiff whose husband was a practisting senior Advocate in the court of Howrah, with the help of police dispossessed the defendants from the suit premises on 17th July, 1983. The defendant No. 1 rushed to the local police station and lodged a general diary and also made an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside that ex parte order passing the decree. The defendant No. 1 rushed to the local police station and lodged a general diary and also made an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside that ex parte order passing the decree. It was stated in that petition that the summons were not served and the guardian for the two minors defendants was not properly appointed and no notice or summons was served according to law and that they got knowledge about the ex parte decree only on 17th July, 1983. The trial court delved into an enquiry as to the service of summons upon the defendants and found from the evidence as adduced by the parties that no summons were served upon the defendants. The court further found that the summons were alleged to have been served in presence of the witnesses and the said two witnesses were withheld by the plaintiff in proof of service of summons. The trial court further found that the summons were not served at all. That is a question of fact. Sitting in revision this Court cannot enter into that arena again. 4. Mr. Basu in support of his submission that the court in deciding the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC transgressed its jurisdiction and ventured into an enquiry beyond the limited jurisdiction of the service of summons relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Manmatha Nath Maity vs. Sm. Provabati Roy & Ors. reported in AIR 1983 Cal 198 wherein the Court observed that the domain of enquiry for the court in an application under Order 9, Rule 13 is regarding the service of the summons. From the order impugned it does not appear that the court did not enter into that arena of enquiry; the court made a thorough enquiry regarding the service of summons and came to a positive finding that the summons were not served. 5. Mr. Basu in the next place submits that mere non-service of summons will not render the decree ineffective unless there is a positive allegation that there was a collusion between the plaintiff and the bailiff regarding the service of summons. In support of his submission Mr. Basu relied on another Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Atul Chardra Sarkar vs. East Bengal Commercial Bank Ltd. & Anr., reported in AIR 1960 Cal 309 . In support of his submission Mr. Basu relied on another Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Atul Chardra Sarkar vs. East Bengal Commercial Bank Ltd. & Anr., reported in AIR 1960 Cal 309 . In the petition under Order 9, Rule 13 it has been alleged that no summons were served, though a return has been shown by the bailiff showing service of the summons. The trial court also entered that arena and found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the summons were served and the witnesses alleged to have been present at the time of service of summons were withheld from appearing before the court in proof of service. So collusion had already been alleged and found by the court. 6. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this revisional application. Hence it is rejected. There will be no order as to costs. Application rejected.