Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This Miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 28th February 1997, passed by the Subordinate Judge, I, Siwan in Misc. Case No. 16 of 1996, under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. 2. The appellants Shambhu Prasad was defendant in Money Suit no. 5 of 1995 in which the plaintiff Firm M/s Satyam Flour Mills Pvt. Limited was the plaintiff. The aforesaid suit was heard ex parte and ex parte decree was passed. When the appellant filed the aforesaid Misc. Case on the ground that he was not served with any summons, either through the court peon or by registered post, the court, however, held on the basis of evidence of applicant-appellant and the evidence on behalf of respondent-O.P. that summons was duly served upon the appellant and, therefore, he had not been able to prove that he was prevented by sufficient cause to appear and contest the suit. In this connection, I find that the court referred to Ext-A and B. Ext-A was the summons issued through the court below to defendant Shambhu Prasad and, perhaps, in this summons, defendant no. 1 was referred to as M/s Santosh Kumar. The report of the process server is to the effect, "Muddaleh No. 1 Se Mulakat Hua, (Muddaleh No. 2 was referred to as Shambhu Prasad in col. No. 1 of the notice) Malum Hua Ki Kahin Gaya Hain Magar No. 1 Ne Apne Nam Ka Wo No. 2 Ke Nam Ka Sammons Lekar Majbun Se Agah Hokar Rasid Likhne Se Inkar Kiya Jo Inke Bhandar Men Rahte Hain." From the aforesaid endorsement of the process server it is apparent that Shambhu Prasad, the appellant and the main defendant in the concerned suit was not present when the peon went to his shop to serve the summons. The name of the person who was present in the shop and who had refused to make acknowledgement of the receipt of summons, has not been mentioned in the record. If at all there was anybody at the shop, the serving peon/ process server and the plaintiff-Birendra Kumar Sinha who had gone to the shop of the appellant along with the peon, should have mentioned the name of the person who was present at the shop. If at all there was anybody at the shop, the serving peon/ process server and the plaintiff-Birendra Kumar Sinha who had gone to the shop of the appellant along with the peon, should have mentioned the name of the person who was present at the shop. If the person refusing to give the acknowledgement was not known even to the plaintiff, then there should have been endorsement that this person refused to disclose his name. There are witnesses such as, Sanjay Singh and Gulab Chandra Singh. At least these persons were expected to know the name of the person present in the shop from whom the process server or the plaintiff could ascertain the name of the person present in the shop. From the aforesaid circumstances, it is further apparent that the service of summons was certainly done or showed to have been done in a suspicious circumstance and the entire report of the process server was a dubious one and it cannot inspire confidence. So far the service through registered post is concerned of course, there is a presumption that once a letter is despatched, it must have reached its destination. But this presumption is always rebuttable and when the appellant defendant denied service even through post, it was incumbent on the part of the plaintiff-respondent to examine the postal peon to prove the service upon the appellant-defendant which was not done. The court below has stated that the appellant-applicant stated that he had come to know about the ex parte decree from another person, whereas A.W. 2 Prabu Nath Prasad stated that he learnt of the ex parte decree through Manager Saheb and then he made this information to A.W. 1-the applicant. On the ground of these two statements, the court below held that the case of the appellant-applicant was doubtful.The aforesaid statement of the court below is neither here nor there. What ever may be the source of information about the ex parte decree to the appellant-applicant, the main issue in the Misc. case is as to whether there was due service upon the appellant-defendant about the pendency of the suit. The above discussion has shown that service of summons to the appellant-defendant was not proved. So I am of the opinion that the Misc. case was wrongly dismissed, 3 In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed in Misc. case is as to whether there was due service upon the appellant-defendant about the pendency of the suit. The above discussion has shown that service of summons to the appellant-defendant was not proved. So I am of the opinion that the Misc. case was wrongly dismissed, 3 In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed in Misc. Case No. 16/96 is set aside. The Money Suit No. 5 of 1995 shall stand restored and ex parte decree shall stand set aside. The suit shall be heard afresh under the provisions of law and fresh judgment shall be passed by the court below after a fresh hearing.