( 1 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree, dt. 05-03-2003, passed by the I Additional District Judge, kurnool, dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous appeal No. 23 of 2002, confirming the order and decree, dated 13-6-2002, in I. A. No. 197 of 2000 in O. S. No. 89 of 2000, passed by the principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. ( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit. ( 4 ) THE defendant was set ex parte on 17-2-1995 and an ex parte decree was passed against him. He filed an application in i. A. No. 197 of 2000 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure after a lapse of about five years. ( 5 ) THE trial Court dismissed the said application and the appeal preferred by the defendant, challenging the said order of the trial Court, was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the defendant contends that the said application was filed within the period of limitation inasmuch as the same was fled within thirty days from the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree passed by the trial court. He also contends that there was no proper service of summons on the defendant and during the enquiry in the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil procedure, it was found by the trial Court that by efflux of time the records relating to the summons were destroyed and therefore a presumption was drawn by both the Courts below that suit summons were duly served on the defendant, which is not permissible under law. ( 7 ) IN this context, it is necessary to look into the reasons recorded by the trial Court, which are as under:"as seen from the record available, unfortunately, due to efflux of time, the return of summons and summons were destroyed. But, as seen from the docket sheet entries in the suit, the petitioner was set ex parte and after the Court was satisfied that there was proper and sufficient service of summons when the service was effected by affixture. But, as seen from the docket sheet entries in the suit, the petitioner was set ex parte and after the Court was satisfied that there was proper and sufficient service of summons when the service was effected by affixture. Merely because, there is service of summons by affixture, it cannot be stated that such service is irregular, when Order-5 Rule-17 CPC provides for such service of summons, it cannot be stated that such service is bad in the eye of law. Further, in view of the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, a decree cannot be set aside, merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, and if the Court is satisfied that the defendant had notice on the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff s claim. " ( 8 ) FROM the above, it is clear that though the record relating to the service of summons was found to be destroyed, the docket sheet in the suit proceedings of the trial Court reveals that the defendant was set ex parte and upon the satisfaction of he trial Court that the summons were duly served on the defendant by affixture, an ex parte decree was passed against him. The proceedings recorded by the Courts need not necessarily be tested in all the cases though in normal course an enquiry is to be conducted by examining the Process Server, in case where service of suit summons were denied while filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil procedure. ( 9 ) IN a rare contingency, where an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the code of the Civil Procedure was filed after a lapse of about five years, particularly when the record relating to the service of suit summons was destroyed, it is not always necessary for the Court to conduct a detailed enquiry. In such a case, it amounts to giving an extra leverage to the litigants to approach the Courts after a lapse of several years with this type of averments and consequently in all cases the Courts have to necessarily conduct an enquiry. In such a case, it amounts to giving an extra leverage to the litigants to approach the Courts after a lapse of several years with this type of averments and consequently in all cases the Courts have to necessarily conduct an enquiry. It is to be further noted that in such cases, the evidence of the Process server also may not be very much useful inasmuch as the Process Server may not be in a position to state as to what had happened about several years back. In other words, if such a situation has to be dealt with strictly in accordance with Order 5 Rule 17 of the code of Civil Procedure, any number of applications under Order 9 Rule 13 of the code of Civil Procedure would be filed belatedly after a lapse of several years and that would lead to further complicated litigation. Such a scope has to be discarded by the Courts. ( 10 ) IN the present case, as already recorded by the trial Court, in the given peculiar circumstances, the only course open for the court is to verify as regards service of summons is the docket sheet in the suit proceedings and the said docket sheet reveals that upon satisfaction of the trial Court that the suit summons were duly and promptly served on the defendant by way of affixture, he was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed against him. There is no reason to doubt the recorded proceedings of the trial court also, particularly when that is the only way available for the trial Court to determine the controversy. ( 11 ) IT was further recorded by the trial court, at Para No-12 of its order, which is as under:"apart from it, the certified copy of notice under Order-21 Rule-22 CPC and the return of Process Server thereon is making out that even before the date of filing this petition on 20-2-2000 by itself, the petitioner was available at kurnool. " ( 12 ) FROM the above, it is clear that during the enquiry and upon appreciating the facts and circumstances, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plea of the defendant that he had knowledge of the ex parte decree passed against him only after a lapse of about five years was also not believed by the trial Court. ( 13 ) I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court and hence the same does not warrant any interference by this Court, inasmuch as both the Courts below have come to the conclusion only on verification of facts and the findings recorded by them are based on facts, which in my view are cogent and convincing. ( 14 ) FOR the foregoing discussion, the Civil revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs.