JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - Vide order dated 15.11.1991, decree was passed in favour of the Oriental Bank of Commerce by Senior Sub Judge, Sirsa for the recovery of Rs. 6,05,382.41 against M/s Sirsa Industries, Industrial Area, Dabwali, Road, Sirsa through its partner Bhanwar Lal Golcha-defendant No. 1, Bhanwar Lal Golcha-defendant No. 2, Vijay Singh Golcha-defendant No. 3, Rajinder Kumar Golcha-defendant No. 4, Smt. Magni Devi wife of Nathu Ram Golcha-defendant No. 5, Pawan Kumar Golcha-defendant No. 6 and Nathu Ram Golcha-defendant No. 7 and also future interest at the rate of 18 per cent annum till realisation of the entire amount. Defendants were held liable to the decretal amount jointly and severally. Decree against defendants No. 1 to 6 was ex parte. Decree against defendant No. 7 i.e. Nathu Ram Golcha was passed after contest. He was represented by Shri B.K. Goel, Advocate. 2. Defendants No. 4 and 5 i.e. Rajinder Kumar Golcha and Smt Magni Devi defendant No. 5 wife of Nathu Ram Golcha filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 15.11.1991 passed against them by the Court. It was alleged that they had been ordered to be summoned for 19.8.1986 and no registered cover was delivered to them by the postman. They never refused to receive registered cover. Report of the postman is a manipulated and manoeuvred report. Registered letters sent to them were not accompanied by copy of plaint. If registered covers are opened, it will be clear that there is no copy of plaint in them. Assuming that registered covers were sought to be delivered to them, there was no proper service on them as they were not accompanied by the copy of plaint. It was further alleged that the bank had described Rajinder Kumar Golcha defendant No. 4 as resident of Delhi. Smt. Magni Devi defendant No. 5 had been described as resident of M/s Sirsa Industries now c/o Nathu Ram Golcha, Street No. 11, Abohar (Punjab). No registered cover/summons was sent to Rajinder Kumar at Delhi address. No registered cover/summons was sent to Magni Devi defendant at Abohar address. In fact, registered covers/summons were never sent to them at their correct addressees and they were never served in the suit. No registered cover/summons was sent to Rajinder Kumar at Delhi address. No registered cover/summons was sent to Magni Devi defendant at Abohar address. In fact, registered covers/summons were never sent to them at their correct addressees and they were never served in the suit. They came to know of the ex parte decree on 20.12.1991 through their Chowkidar who told them that when they come to the factory premises, Chowkidar told them that bank had obtained decree against factory owners and that the factory premises will be sold in execution of the decree. 3. Oriental Bank of Commerce opposed this application. It was urged that Pawan Kumar Golcha and Nathu Ram Golcha were served through registered post. Nathu Ram Golcha appeared and Pawan Kumar Golcha was proceeded ex parte. Bhanwar Lal Golcha, Rajinder Kumar Golcha, Vijay Kumar Golcha and Smt. Magni Devi had refused to accept service sent through registered covers and summons for service of defendant No. 1-firm were also sent but were refused by the person present at the spot and the Court was left with no option except to proceed ex parte against the said defendants, who either did not appear despite service or refused to accept summons. Nathu Ram Golcha is head of the family consisting of his sons Bhanwar Lal Golcha, his wife Smt. Magni Devi., Nathu Ram Golcha had been the general attorney of other persons. He had told the other defendants about the suit and they did not appear intentionally. Notice of application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC was sent through registered cover to all the defendants. Pawan Kumar accepted the service but did not put in appearance and other defendants avoided service. They refused to accept registered covers. It was further urged that in the earlier stage, Nathu Ram Golcha had been defending the proceedings and now he has sent his son and wife to have a second round of litigation in case the Court proceeds to set aside ex parte judgment and decree against them, they be called upon to furnish bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 25 lacs. 4. Following issues were framed by the trial Court on 27.9.1996 : 1. Whether there exist sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 15.11.1991 ? OPP. 2. Whether this application is within time ? OPP 3. Relief. 5. 25 lacs. 4. Following issues were framed by the trial Court on 27.9.1996 : 1. Whether there exist sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 15.11.1991 ? OPP. 2. Whether this application is within time ? OPP 3. Relief. 5. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sirsa allowed this application and set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.11.1991, in view of his finding, that in case the defendants had refused to accept service, they should have been served through affixation or munadi. It was found that there was no evidence to suggest that they had knowledge of suit. It was found that application was within time. 6. Not satisfied with his order of civil Judge, Senior Division, Sirsa dated 5.9.1988, Oriental Bank of Commerce has come up in revision to this Court. 7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent-defendants No. 4 and 5 had been justifiably proceeded ex parte as they had refused to receive service through registered covers. Service through registered covers was sufficient service. We need not go into this point because respondents No. 6 and 7 received the summons. Respondent No. 7 is the father of Rajinder Kumar Golcha defendant No. 4. He is husband of defendant No. 5. It is a firm M/s Sirsa Industries and Bhanwar Lal Golcha, Vijay Singh Golcha, Rajinder Kumar Golcha. Pawan Kumar Golcha sons of Nathu Ram Golcha. Nathu Ram Golcha himself and Smt. Magni Devi wife of Nathu Ram Golcha are partners in this firm. Nathu Ram Golcha was arrayed as defendant as he is alleged to be guarantor. It is not believable that when Pawan Kumar Golcha and Nathu Ram Golcha had been personally served, they did not tell the other defendants that there is a suit against them filed by Oriental Bank of Commerce for the recovery of the loan amount. It is true that when Magni Devi had been described as resident of street No. 11 Abohar, summons should have been sent to her at Abohar address. Summons should have been sent to Rajinder Kumar Golcha at Delhi address when he has been described as resident of Delhi in the plaint. It is equally true that the suit was contested only by Nathu Ram Golcha and rest of the defendants went ex parte. Summons should have been sent to Rajinder Kumar Golcha at Delhi address when he has been described as resident of Delhi in the plaint. It is equally true that the suit was contested only by Nathu Ram Golcha and rest of the defendants went ex parte. No wonder, it was done by them intentionally with a view of the file application for setting aside decree later and thus to stall the recovery of the decretal amount. It is a family concern and the members of the family comprise this family concern. If Nathu Ram Golcha could contest the suit why not his wife and sons-respondents No. 4 and 5 could join the proceedings earlier. Suit was instituted in the year 1986. It is not believable they did not come to know of the pendency of the suit during this period when Nathu Golcha was all along contesting the suit. 8. Trial Court set aside the ex parte decree against defendants No. 4 and 5. In revision, this Court can interfere if trial Court has not exercised its jurisdiction properly or has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity. If trial Court has set aside the ex parte decree against defendants 4 and 5 feeling that there was no proper service on them and service on one partner could not be viewed as service on other partners and further there should have been effort at service by affixation or munadi after there had been failure at service through registered covers on them, it is a finding of fact, which cannot be interfered in revision. 9. In my opinion, there is no irregularity and illegality in the impugned order of the trial Court setting aside the ex parte decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sirsa. 10. Plaintiff bank filed suit in the year 1986. It was decreed in the year 1991. Now we are in the year 2000. It is public money, which is channelised through banking institutions. By now the decretal amount has swelled to many folds, I therefore, think, in equity, defendant-respondents No. 4 and 5 should be called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 200,000/- to the bank on or before 13.9.2000, in case, they mean that ex parte decree against them should remain set aside and they should participate in the suit proceedings. 11. 200,000/- to the bank on or before 13.9.2000, in case, they mean that ex parte decree against them should remain set aside and they should participate in the suit proceedings. 11. So, the order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sirsa dated 5.9.1998, impugned in this revision is modified. Ex parte decree passed against respondents No. 4 and 5 shall be deemed to have been set aside provided they deposit in Court a sum of Rs. Two lacs on or before 13.9.2000, which shall be paid to the Oriental Bank of Commerce. In case respondents No. 4 and 5 do not comply with this order, ex parte decree shall remain in force against them. Order accordingly.