JUDGEMENT Per T.S. Doabia J 1. The Divisional Manager, J&K State Forest Corporation, Division Udhampur through self and on behalf of the Corporation has preferred an application seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree dated 22.08.1997.lt is submitted that the petitioners had no knowledge regarding the award having been filed in the court. The decree in terms of the award was passed on 22.08.1997. An application for setting aside it was filed in this court on 13.08.1998. It was obviously barred by limitation, the question arose as to whether the Corporation was prevented for good and sufficient cause from filing application under order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and could seek the setting aside the decree. Opportunity was given to the petitioners to lead evidence. Statement of Sh. Mughal was partly recorded on 09.10.2000. On 20.10.2000, this court made an observation to the effect that the court does not want to cross-exmine the witness for further proceedings and recording evidence. 2. As indicated above, an application has been filed in for setting aside the exparte-decree passed on 22.08.1997, this application was filed on 13.08.1998. The plea taken is that this application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings is barred by limitation. The applicants were called upon to show cause for the delay. A large question arise for adjudication. In Arbitration Application No. 241/ 92. Managing Director, J&K SFC Udhampur has been arrayed as respondent. Even if it be presumed that these respondents were served, can it be said that this was a valid service on the State Forest Corporation. So far the State Forest Corporation is concerned, it is a Statutory Corporation constituted under Jammu and Kashmir State Forest Corporation Act 1978. The relevant provision which makes mention of the fact that the Corporation would be a corporation sole and it can sue or can be sued in its corporate name is as under: "3. Establishment of the Corporation. - (1) The Government shall by notification in the Government Gazette and with effect from a date to be specified therein, constitute a Corporation by the name of the Jammu and Kashmir State Forest Corporation. 2. The Corporation shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and may sue and be sued in its corporate name and shall have the power to acquire, hold and dispose of property for the purposes of this Act. 2. The Corporation shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and may sue and be sued in its corporate name and shall have the power to acquire, hold and dispose of property for the purposes of this Act. 3. The Corporation shall for all purposes be a local authority. 4. The Corporation shall have its head office at Srinagar and may have offices at such other places as either consider necessary." 3. At this stage provisions of Order 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure be also noticed, this reads as under: "Order XXIX (R, 1-3) Suits by or against corporations. 1. Subscription and verification of pleading. In-suits by or against a Corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the Corporation by the secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case. 2. Service on Corporation. Subject to any statutory provision regulating service of process, where the suit is against a Corporation, the summons may be served- a. On the secretary, or on any director, or other principal officer of the corporation, or b. By leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the Corporation at the registered office, or if there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation carries on business. 3. Power to require personal attendance of officer of corporation. - the court may, at any stage of the suit, require the personal appearance of the secretary or of any director, or other Principal Officer of the corporation who may be able to answer material question relating to the suit." 4. A persual of the above would indicate that in case of a corporate body, the service has to be affected on the persons referred to in order XXIX i.e. Secretary or any director or other Principal Officer of the corporation. The Divisional Manager cannot be called as Principal Officer. 5. I am of the opinion that when decree in A.A. No. 241/92 was passed on 22.03.1997, the State Forest Corporation, was never arrayed as a respondent in the corporate name. If this be the position then in the eyes of law there is absolutely no service on the corporation. The Divisional Manager cannot be called as Principal Officer. 5. I am of the opinion that when decree in A.A. No. 241/92 was passed on 22.03.1997, the State Forest Corporation, was never arrayed as a respondent in the corporate name. If this be the position then in the eyes of law there is absolutely no service on the corporation. As a matter of fact, the decree passed against on the official namely Divisional Manager cannot be treated as a decree against the Corporation. The decree in question is held to be nullity. Accordingly, fresh proceedings would be taken. Arbitration Application No. 241/92 would be heard a fresh. The state forest Corporation through its Managing Director shall stand arrayed as party. This petition is disposed of accordingly.