JUDGMENT -R.K. BATTA, J.:---The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) had filed a suit for damages suffered by him on account of fall of three trees on his water tank. Prior to the fall of the said trees, notice had been given by the plaintiff to the respondents to cut the said trees. The respondents did not take any action and eventually the trees fell on the water tank of the plaintiff. 2.In the suit it appears that written statement was filed without signatures. Subsequently the respondents did not put in appearance and the suit proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff led evidence ex parte and the suit was decreed on 2nd August, 1996 to the tune of Rs. 12,000/-. The respondents 4, 5 and 7 who are defendants 4, 5 and 7 had filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree on 6th August, 1997 and alongwith that application they filed an application for condonation of delay, which was granted. Respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 had also filed an application for setting aside the decree, but, it was rejected by the trial Court and the defendant No. 1 has not challenged the same. The application filed by the respondents 4, 5 and 7 was granted by the trial Court vide impugned order, which is subject matter of challenge in this revision. 3.Learned advocate Shri Godinho, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, has urged that the trial Court has proceeded on the footing that the service which was effected on the female member is not a valid service and the bailiff in his report had not stated that the respondents 4, 5 and 7 were not likely to come back within a reasonable time and that Smt. Filomena Cota was their agent. He took me through Order V, Rule 15 as amended with effect from 1st April 1987 by Notification of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay No. P.0102/77 insofar as Goa is concerned. The substituted Order V, Rule 15 insofar as it is applicable to Goa is as under:- "15. When the defendant cannot for any reason be personally served and has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, service may be made on any adult member of the family of the defendant who is residing with him. The substituted Order V, Rule 15 insofar as it is applicable to Goa is as under:- "15. When the defendant cannot for any reason be personally served and has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, service may be made on any adult member of the family of the defendant who is residing with him. Explanation:- A servant is not a member of the family within the meaning of this rule." 4.It is clear from the substituted rule that the service under Order V, Rule 15 can be effected on any adult member of the family of the defendant, who is residing with him. Learned advocate for respondents 4, 5 and 7 does not dispute the proposition that the summons can, in view of the above, be served on a female member. However, his contention is that the normal rule for effecting service is that the service should be effected personally and it is only on an exception that service under Order V, Rule 15 provided the provisions laid down thereunder are strictly satisfied. He has further argued that the bailiff in his report has not recorded any reasons as to why the summon could not be served on respondents 4, 5 and 7 or that the said respondents were living with respondents No. 1, on whom the service was effected by him. He, therefore, contends that since the service was not effected strictly in terms of Order V, Rule 15, the trial Judge was perfectly right and justified in setting aside the ex parte Order. On the other hand learned advocate for the plaintiff drew my attention to Order IX, Rule 13 as applicable to Goa and specially to the Second Proviso. He, therefore, contends that since the service was not effected strictly in terms of Order V, Rule 15, the trial Judge was perfectly right and justified in setting aside the ex parte Order. On the other hand learned advocate for the plaintiff drew my attention to Order IX, Rule 13 as applicable to Goa and specially to the Second Proviso. Order IX, Rule 13 reads as under:- "In any case in which a decree is passed ex-parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that there was sufficient cause for his failure to appear when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs payment into Court or otherwise as it think fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit; Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only, it may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also; Provided also that no such decree shall be set aside merely on the ground of irregularity of service of summons, if the Court is satisfied that the defendant knew, or but for his wilful conduct would have known, of the date of hearing in sufficient time to enable him to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim. Explanation I- Where a summons has been served under Order V, Rule 15, on an adult member having an interest adverse to that of the defendant in the subject-matter of the suit, it shall not be deemed to have been duly served within the meaning of this rule. Explanation I- Where a summons has been served under Order V, Rule 15, on an adult member having an interest adverse to that of the defendant in the subject-matter of the suit, it shall not be deemed to have been duly served within the meaning of this rule. Explanation II- Where there has been an appeal against a decree passed ex-parte under the rule, and the appeal has been disposed of on any ground other than the ground that the appellant, has withdrawn the appeal, no application shall lie under this rule for setting aside that ex-parte decree." 5.The grounds which are contemplated for setting aside ex parte decree are that the Court should be satisfied that the summons were not duly served or that there was sufficient cause for failure to appear when the suit was called for hearing. Second Proviso to Order IX, Rule 13, however, provides that no such ex parte decree shall be set aside merely on the ground of irregularity of service of summons, if the Court is satisfied that the defendant knew, or but for his wilful conduct would have known, of the date of hearing in sufficient time to appear and answer plaintiff's claim. 6.The report of the bailiff in respect of the disputed service on respondents 4, 5 and 7 is at page 56. The report shows that the summons were handed over on behalf of respondents 4, 5 and 7 to respondent No. 1. There is no dispute that respondent No. 1 is the mother of respondents 4, 5 and 7. Even in the application for setting aside, it is not disputed that these respondents were not residing with respondent No. 1. In the application for setting aside, the respondents 4, 5 and 7 have admitted that they were not at their residence when the bailiff came to serve the summons. In this background, it cannot be said that the summons have not been properly served by the bailiff insofar as respondents 4, 5 and 7 are concerned. It is no doubt true that he has not specifically mentioned some facts in the report but, there is no dispute that at the time when the bailiff came to serve the summons, the respondents 4, 5 and 7 were not present in the house. It is no doubt true that he has not specifically mentioned some facts in the report but, there is no dispute that at the time when the bailiff came to serve the summons, the respondents 4, 5 and 7 were not present in the house. Besides this, the respondents 4, 5 and 7 had not given any other sufficient cause for their failure to appear in the Court. The summons were served on the said respondents on 30th November 1994 and the ex parte decree was passed on 2nd August 1996. Even otherwise, in view of the Second Proviso to Order IX, Rule 13, I am satisfied that the respondents 4, 5 and 7 knew about the service of summons and even if there was any irregularity, the same would not in any manner help the respondents 4, 5 and 7 for the purpose of setting aside the ex parte decree. Learned advocate Shri Godinho has relied upon the judgment in (Sarbeswar Ghosh v. Manad Kumar Sajjan and another)1, A.I.R. 1992 Calcutta 82. 7.For the aforesaid reasons, I must say that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not only perverse but contrary to law. Therefore, the impugned order setting aside the ex parte decree dated 2nd August 1996 is set aside. The revision is, accordingly allowed with costs and rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. Revision allowed. -----