D. M. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the order dated 28. 2. 1998 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepur passed on a petition under Order, 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code dismissing the defendant's petition for setting aside an ex parte decree in a money suit filed by the respondent No. 1, the State Bank of India. ( 2 ) THE State Bank of India filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,67,037/- advanced by it to the present appellant for purchase of a tractor. Since the appellant failed to repay the loan the Bank filed the suit for recovery of the amount with interest. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT remained ex parte. When the Bank proceeded for final decree by way of sale of the properties given as security for the loan, the appellant appeared and prayed in the above petition to set aside the decree on the ground that she suffered from prolonged illness from 1. 11. 1993 to 13. 12. 1997 and therefore she could not appear on 8. 11. 1993 when she was set ex parte and thereafter on 4. 2. 1994 when the Court disposed of the suit by preliminarily decreeing the same ex parte. Lower Court was not satisfied with the reasons advanced for restoration of the suit. ( 4 ) HEARD Mr. H. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P. V Ramdas, learned counsel for the State Bank of India. Perused the impugned order dated 28. 2. 1998. The Court has given adequate reasons for justifying his finding that the appellant failed to prove illness during the period so claimed. The court has mentioned that in various petitions prior to filing of the restoration petition, the defendant did not state anything of her illness during the period as mentioned above. 1 do not think there is anything wrong with this finding. ( 5 ) THAT apart, on examining the petition for restoration itself, I find that the defendant did not mention that she was suffering from paralysis and that she was being treated by nilambar Raiguru, Kaviraj. The conspicuous omission of the nature of illness and name of the treating physician certainly strikes at the root of her case of absence of sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date of hearing. The conspicuous omission of the nature of illness and name of the treating physician certainly strikes at the root of her case of absence of sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date of hearing. I would not have normally interfered with the order since it is backed by good reasoning, but on going through the order-sheet of the case record, I find the following defects for which the Court should have allowed the petition and given a chance to contest the case. They are as follows : ( 6 ) THE suit was filed on 12. 7. 1993, After office note etc. the Court-fee was paid on 14. 9. 1993. On 24. 9. 1993 the Court admitted the plaint and issued summons to the defendants fixing 8. 11. 1993. On 8. 11. 1993 the postal A. D. of the defendant was backed after 'personal service' as is found from the order-sheet and since they were absent from call arid no steps was taken on their behalf, they were set ex-parte. The case was posted to 17. 12. 1993 for ex-parte hearing. On 17. 12. 1993 the plaintiff filed a petition for passing a judgment as per the provisions under Order 8, rule 5, CPC and ultimately this petition was allowed and the Court on 4. 2. 1994 delivered the judgment without recording any evidence. ( 7 ) GLARING defect is found to be in the order dated 8. 11. 1993 wherein there is no indication whether the service of summons through Court was received back after service. The Court recorded only about postal A. D. being backed after personal service. The provisions of order 5, Rule 10, CPC is mandatory and there is no question of dispensing with the provisions while judging the sufficiency of notice/summons on other side. Rule 10 of order 5, CPC prescribes that service of summons shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed by the Judge or such officer as he appoints in this behalf, and sealed with the seal of the Court. Thus, it has to be served personally or on his agent or any adult male member of the family of the defendant. Rule 17 of that Order prescribes mode of service by affixture when circumstances as enumerated thereunder justified. But in any case even under that rule the serving officer has to put an endorsement to that effect. Thus, it has to be served personally or on his agent or any adult male member of the family of the defendant. Rule 17 of that Order prescribes mode of service by affixture when circumstances as enumerated thereunder justified. But in any case even under that rule the serving officer has to put an endorsement to that effect. Rule 19 of order 5 makes it mandatory that where a summons is returned under Rule 17, the Court shall under the circumstances mentioned therein after being satisfied may hold that the summons has been fully served or order such service as it thinks fit. ( 8 ) GOING through the above provisions of the CPC there is no doubt that no efforts have been made by the Court issuing the summons to see that the summons were duly served in person. There is nothing on the record to show that such summons were at all issued or even though it was issued it was duly served through the process of Court on the defendant personally, or that the circumstances justified to hold the service of summons through Court peon as sufficient. Mere acceptance of postal acknowledgement by the Court by personal service is against the provisions of law. Order 8, Rule 5 C. P. C. does not lay down to dispense with recording of evidence of the plaintiff under the circumstances mentioned above. Therefore, I feel it appropriate for this reason alone, to set aside the order ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. Lower Court judgment is set aside. The suit is restored to position as it stood on 8. 11. 1993. The appellant is however directed to appear before the said Court on 23. 9. 1999 and shall file written statement if not already filed within a period of 15 days thereafter or within such period as may be granted by the Court. The court shall proceed to dispose of the case within a period of six months after settlement of the issue. Appeal allowed.