JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 28.8.2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 145/2001 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code has been rejected. 3. Notices of the hearing of the suit for 3.2.2001 is alleged to have been served on the petitioners by obtaining thumb impression of Idan Singh, petitioner No. 2. 4. The petitioners on having come to know that the proceedings for setting aside a Registered Adoption Deed executed in their favour by the respondents is being proceeded ex parte, moved this application alleging that the notices were not properly served on the defendants at all and, therefore, the order of ex parte proceedings may be set aside and they may be allowed to pursue the suit. 5. The learned Trial Judge without even examining the merits of the applicant's case merely on the basis of the presumption arrieved from the report of the Process Server has rejected the application. It is pertinent to note here that both the notices have been served by obtaining thumb impression alleged to be that of Idan Singh. Once such a measure has been denied, the matter at least needed investigation. Soon after coming to know about the ex parte proceedings and the date fixed for their appearance was 23.2.2001, an application was moved for setting aside order to proceed ex parte. Obviously 23.2.2001 was the first date of hearing. On 23.3.2001 the learned Judge holds that the suit has reached at its final stage of termination by closing the evidence of the plaintiffs. The hot haste in which the suit of this nature which has been finalised in 2000 for invalidating a Registered Adoption Deed by keeping out the affected party, when the application for setting aside the ex parte order was moved within one month leaves much to be desired. The rules of procedure are to be hand made of justice and not a tool for punishing a litigant by not giving him a reasonable opportunity to have a judgment on merit. Unless the defendants-petitioners are given a chance to contest the suit on merit, it will result in substantial failure of justice. 6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The rules of procedure are to be hand made of justice and not a tool for punishing a litigant by not giving him a reasonable opportunity to have a judgment on merit. Unless the defendants-petitioners are given a chance to contest the suit on merit, it will result in substantial failure of justice. 6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order dated 28.8.2001 is set aside subject to condition that the petitioners-defendants shall file their written statement on or before the next date fixed in the Court, which is stated to be 9.11.2001. If the petitioners submit their written statement, the learned Trial Court shall recall the order of proceeding ex parte and proceed with the suit on the basis of the pleadings submitted by the parties in accordance with law. 7. No order as to costs.Revision Petition allowed. *******