J. G. CHITRE, J. ( 1 ) MR. Garg submitted that the learned trial Judge committed the error in taking resort to Order V, Rule 19-A of the Civil procedure Code and holding that there was proper and legal service of notice of suit bearing No. 27-B\87. He submitted that the learned Trial Judge also committed the error in rejecting M. J. C. No. 32/90 which was filed by the present appellants when the present appellant showed sufficient cause for setting aside the impugned decree which was passed against them exparte. Mr. Garg (sic.) on the provisions of Order V, Rules 19 and 19-A and submitted that the learned Trial Judge was wrong in presuming that the appellants were properly served so far as the said suit was concerned. He pointed out that trial Court deleted the name of defendant No. 4 from the array of defendants who was the only defendant being properly and legally served as the notices were returned unserved so far that defendant was concerned. Mr. Garg submitted that the learned trial Judge should have held that there was no proper and legal service so far as appellants 1 to 3 were concerned who were defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit. ( 2 ) MR. Garg further submitted that when the exparte decree was passed against the appellant and it was sent to the Court concerned at Madras (now Chennai) and when the execution proceedings started, for the first time the appellants learnt that such a decree was passed against them exparte, He submitted that the appellants came to Indore contacted a lawyer and submitted M. J. C. bearing No. 32/ 90. However, that was dismissed by the learned trial Judge, ( 3 ) M. J. C. bearing No. 32/90 was concerned with a prayer made by the appellants for the purpose of setting aside the exparte decree which was passed of against them in view of the provisions of Order IX, Rule 13, civil Procedure Code. The learned Trial Judge held that the notices were sent to the appellants by traditional system as well as by Registered Post acknowledgement due on 9. 12. 1987. The learned Trial Judge disbelieved the evidence of appellant No. 3 Trikamdas when he stated on oath that the appellants did not receive any summons of the suit bearing no. 27-B/87 which was decreed against them exparte. 12. 1987. The learned Trial Judge disbelieved the evidence of appellant No. 3 Trikamdas when he stated on oath that the appellants did not receive any summons of the suit bearing no. 27-B/87 which was decreed against them exparte. The learned Judge held that the notices which were sent to the appellants by traditional system were not returned either served or unserved. He also held that the postal receipts showed that the summons were despatched to the appellants for service by Registered Post AD on 9. 12. 1987. By pointing out this, she presumed that notices must have been served on them in view of the provisions of order V, Rule 19-A, Civil Procedure Code, Order 5, Rule 19 provides that where a summons is returned under Rule 17, the Court shall, if they return, under that rule has not been verified by the affidavit of the serving officer, and may, if it has been so verified, examine the serving officer on oath, or cause him to be so examined by another Court, touching his proceedings, and may make such further enquiry in that matter as it thinks fit, and shall cither declare that the summons has been duly served or order such service as it thinks fit, ( 4 ) RULE 19-A provides (1) the Court shall in addition to, and simultaneously with, the issue of summons for service in the manner provided in Rules 9 to 19 (both inclusive) also direct the summons to be served by registered post, acknowledgement due, addressed to the defendant, or his agent empowered to accept the service, as the place where the defendant, or his agent, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. It has been provided that nothing in the sub rule shall require die Court to issue summons for service by registered post where in the circumstances of the case the Court considers unnecessary. It has been provided that nothing in the sub rule shall require die Court to issue summons for service by registered post where in the circumstances of the case the Court considers unnecessary. Sub-rule 2 provides that when an acknowledgement purporting to be signed by the defendant or his agent is received by the Court or the postal article containing the summons is received back by the Court with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the defendant or his agent had refused to take delivery of postal article containing the (sic.)him, the Court issuing summons shall declare that the summons had been duly served on the defendant. It has been provided that where the summons was properly addressed, prepaid and duly sent by registered post acknowledgment due, the declaration referred to in this sub-rule shall be made notwithstanding the fact that the acknowledgement having been lost or mislaid, or for other reason, has not been received by the Court within 30 days from the date of issue of the summons. ( 5 ) INITIALLY the learned Judge did not commit the mistake in holding that service of the summons was proper by presuming to have been so served keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19-A. Of course the Court was obliged to consider the provisions of Rule 19-A entirely together. However, when the appellants appeared before the Court and made a prayer by moving an application for setting aside that exparte decree by putting a case that they had the knowledge of passing of such decree; only when execution proceedings started in the court at Madras (Chennai) against them. In such proceedings when appellant No. 3 Trikam das gives the evidence on oath that appellants did not receive the summons of the suit bearing No. 27-B/87 and when it was not challenged or contradicted by the respondents, the court should have believed the statement on oath by the appellant No. 3 in the absence of material contrary to that. After all the procedural law is meant for administration of justice but that has to be done in the interest of justice. After all the procedural law is meant for administration of justice but that has to be done in the interest of justice. Initially the learned Judge was right in deciding the suit keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19-A or Order V but when it was brought to the notice of the learned Judge that the said summons were not in fact received by the original defendants 1 to 3, then it was the duty of the learned Judge to consider their contention which was supported by the statement on oath by appellant No. 3. Learned judge in such cases is obliged to take into consideration the normal delay and lethargy on the part of the postal department which is a bitter experience of the present days. The court in the present matter also should have considered that defendant No. 4 on whom the service of summons was effected, was deleted from the array of the defendants. The averment of the plaintiff in the suit mentioned in the plaint were to be answered by the defendant No. 4 only. The Court should have seen whether the plaintiff was making any prayer for reissuance of such summons on defendant no. 4 as well as to defendants 1 to 3. If such a request was made that the Court was; obliged to re-issue summons to all the defendants or atleast defendant No. 4 whose summons was returned unserved. Without following such procedure it was an error on the part of the Court to delete the name from the array of defendants and to decide the suit exparte against defendants 1 to 3. The learned Judge committed the error in not proceeding with the suit in accordance with the necessary provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 6 ) WHEN the prayer was made to set aside the exparte decree by the appellants, in the interest of justice the Court should have rectified the mistake committed by it and should have set aside the said exparte decree, in the interest of justice Justice has to be done, not only it has only to be done but it should appear to have been done. There is no point in disposing of the suit or proceedings on technical grounds without giving proper opportunity to the litigants who pursue their claims or prayers which they are entitled in view of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and other enactments. It has to be borne in mind that justice hurried, justice worried. The mistake committed by the Trial Court in good faith should always be corrected because after all the Courts are meant for giving justice to the citizens who come to the Court as litigants. Unnecessary importance has not to be given to technicality indicated by procedural law. Needless to say that each and every matter depends in the facts and circumstances of that matter. The Court has to use its discretion proper and legally. The main purpose should be to administer the justice to the litigants. Disposal at the cost of justice is not proper ( 7 ) THUS, the appeal is allowed. The decree which has been passed against the appellant exparte by 4th A. D. J. , Indore, in the matter of Civil Suit No. 27-B/87 is set aside. The suit be restored at its original number. The trial court to issue summons to all the respondents (Original plaintiffs) All of them be given full opportunity of putting their case in accordance with the provisions of law. The suit be retried and decided at an early date positively within a span of 9 months after the notices are served on the parties. No order as to costs of this appeal in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Appeal allowed. .