Judgment R. N. Sahay, J. 1. The appellant kishori Prasad was defendant No.3 in money suit No.99/81 in the court of subordinate judge, Bihar Sherif. There are however, several other defendants in the suit. The suit was decree ex-pane. Coming to know about the ex- pane decree the appellant filed and application under Order IX, rule 13 of the Code of civil Procedure. The Subordinate Judge has rejected the application and hence this appeal. 2. According to the service report of the peon in the suit with regard to service of summons on the parties notices could not be served on the appellant as the process-server could not contact him. The summon was, therefore, returned unserved. The suit was instituted against the appellant not in his individual capacity but as the Member of M/s. Bhaisasur Shikhit Berojgar motor Parivahan Sahkari Samiti. This co-operative Society had taken loan from the plaintiff Punjab National bank. The suit was filed for realisation of the amount. According to the case of the appellant at the time of institution of the suit the appellant ceased to be member of the Society. Summon and service report has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the Memorandum of Appeal. According to the summon, the appellant has been described as defendant No.2 whereas according to the plaint he was defendant No.3. In the service report the Process Server has stated that the appellant refused to accept summon, hence summon was affixed on the house of the appellant. 3. The case of the decree holder is that the appellant had received summon. All the defendants being member of the Society had knowledge of the suit and they intentionally left the suit on account of their weak case. The appellant examined himself in the court and asserted that he had not received any notice or summon in the suit. He got knowledge of the suit on 27.11.84. He also challenged the report of the process-server of refusal of summon. One witness on behalf of the decree holder was examined. He was an advocates Clerk He stated that summon-were filled up by him and the process server took the summons for service on the defendants. Two of the defendants, namely, Mathura Prasad singh and Dharmendra Choudhary received summons. The other defendants refused to take delivery of the summons. It was stated that the defendants had knowledge of the suit. He was an advocates Clerk He stated that summon-were filled up by him and the process server took the summons for service on the defendants. Two of the defendants, namely, Mathura Prasad singh and Dharmendra Choudhary received summons. The other defendants refused to take delivery of the summons. It was stated that the defendants had knowledge of the suit. The process server was not examined to prove the refusal of summons by the defendants nor any of the witnesses, who had signed the report of the process server were examined. 4. I find that the witness of the bank has only stated that he had prepared summons which were taken by the process server. Nowhere it is stated that he accompanied the process server when he had gone to serve summons. The evidence of Vijay Kishore, advocates Clerk has no consequence. There is no confirmation by the process server that he filled up the summons and accompanied him. 5. In Firm Harnarain Rajnarain and other V/s. Smt. Tara Sinha reported in a. I. R.1974 Patna 351 it was held that the statement about the service of summon by the process server not affirmed by the process server but by Nazir cannot be treated to be service by the process server. The importance of such an affidavit has been considered by the full Bench of the Madras High Court in a. I. R.1970 Mad.271. It reads thus:- "if there is an affidavit it means that the serving officer has stated something on oath and if the statement turns out to be false he could be prosecuted. That itself would put him on guard and make him adhere to the truth as far as possible and would minimise the chances of a false return of service. It is with the same object that the Court is required to examine him on oath where he has not verified the return by an affidavit before the prescribed officer (Nazir ). We know of numerous instances where defendants and judgment-debtors come to the court and state that the process-server has not come to their place at all and that the alleged affixure is a myth ; and there are several cases where such a contention of the defendant or a judgment debtor has been accepted by the Courts. We know of numerous instances where defendants and judgment-debtors come to the court and state that the process-server has not come to their place at all and that the alleged affixure is a myth ; and there are several cases where such a contention of the defendant or a judgment debtor has been accepted by the Courts. Such a danger would be minimised if the court adheres to the provision of Order V, Rule 19. If it makes it a point to question the serving officer as to what he did when he went to the village and what attempts he made to get at the defendant, there is no doubt that the service would be more real and effective than it would be otherwise. We cannot really overemphasise the importance of this provision. Very often there is room for thinking that the Court does not even look into the return, but simply says service sufficient defendant absent; set ex-parte. That defeats the salutary purpose for which the detailed provision have been enacted with anxiety by the Legislature. " 6. The process server was not examined and his report which is not in accordance with law could not be accepted. In fact, the learned subordinate judge has not decided this question. In his opinion appearance of the secretary amounts to knowledge of all the office bearers and members of the Samiti. Learned subordinate judge was not correct in holding that no notice was necessary on all the defendants including the appellant. 7. In view of the above discussions i allow this appeal and set aside the ex-pane decree so far as it relates to the appellant passed in Misc. case No.30 of 1984, dated 12.2.1986. Since the Punjab national Bank has not appeared to contest this appeal, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeal Allowed.