JUDGMENT H.K.K. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.K. Nokulsana, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. Th. Tolpishak learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Upon hearing the learned counsel on both sides, I find that this Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 2.8.2002 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Manipur East rejecting the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.G. for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 17.4.2002 passed in Money Suit No. 293/1999/6/2002 against which an appeal lies under Order XLIII Rule l(d) of CPC and as such, no revision under Section 115 of the CPC lies. At this stage, Mr. Nokulsana has submitted for converting this revision petition (Revision Case) into an appeal thereby treating the petition of revision as a memo of appeal carried from the impugned order dated 2.8.2002 passed by the learned Trial Court in Judl. Misc. Case No. 98/2002. 3. Mr. Tolpishak has rightly conceded this legal proposition that appeal lies against the impugned order and as such, revision does not lie. Thus, the only question is whether the application may be treated as a memo of appeal. 4. I have considered the matter. As a proposition of law, conversion of an application for revision into a memo of appeal is not impermissible but it has to be seen as to whether the statutory requirement regarding contents of the memo of appeal, grounds of objection to the impugned order and what should be accompanied with the memorandum of appeal as provided for under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XLI read with Order XLIII R. 2 of CPC has been complied or not. On perusal of the revision petition and other documents including the certified copy of the impugned order, I have no hesitation in allowing the prayer of Mr. Nokulsana for converting this revision application into a memo of appeal. I say so for the reason that any irregularity or infraction regarding contents etc. is curable. And again, this Court is also the appellate Court for the present subject matter and as such, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. 5. Before admitting the present appeal (on conversion of the petition for revision into a memo of appeal), the miscellaneous application being Civil Misc. Application No. 13/2003 for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal is to decided. 6. 5. Before admitting the present appeal (on conversion of the petition for revision into a memo of appeal), the miscellaneous application being Civil Misc. Application No. 13/2003 for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal is to decided. 6. The original suit was decreed ex parte on 17.4.2002. The Judl. Misc Case No. 98/2002 (Ref:- Money Suit No. 293/1999/6/2002) filed for setting a side the ex parte decree was rejected on 2.8.2002, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 47 in Execution Case No. 25/2002 for the execution of the ex-parte decree passed on 17.4.2002. This application under Section 47 was also rejected on 16.12.2002. Only thereafter, the present memo of appeal (on conversion of the revision petition into a memo of appeal) has been filed. In this application, it has been averred that after obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 16.12.2002 passed in Judl. Misc. Case No. 184/2002, some time has been taken on taking legal advice from the new counsel. These facts are supported by an affidavit. Now, Mr. Nokulsana has submitted that filing of an application under Section 47 of the CPC was on the basis of a mistaken advice from the earlier counsel, and again, some time was also taken in approaching this Court and the learned counsel has again submitted that the delay in the present case is due to bona fide prosecution in a wrong forum and as such, the same may be condoned. Here also, Mr. Tolpishak, learned counsel for the decree holder, who with his usual fairness, has submitted that there is no objection to the prayer for condonation, reason being that the grounds on which the condonation has been sought is bona fide legal advice which ultimately came out to be a mistaken advice. Under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, time during which an applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence, another civil proceeding against the same party for the same reliefs shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith and as such, in the present case, the averment of the petitioner which is supported by an affidavit and which has not been controverted by the counsel for the other side, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the delay in preferring the present memo of appeal may be condoned and accordingly, the Misc. Application being No. 13/ 2003 is allowed. Application being No. 13/ 2003 is allowed. 7. As the condonation application has been allowed, the Civil Revision petition No. 6/2003 be re-registered as a Miscellaneous Civil Appeal and same is admitted and as urged by the learned counsel on both sides and considering the nature of the case, I propose to dispose of the whole matter at this stage. 8. From perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 2.8.2002, it is found recorded that service of the summons on the defendant in the suit (applicant herein) was effected through the father of the defendant on 4.4.2002 and according to the learned Trial Court, under Order V,. Rule 15 of the CPC, such service on an adult member of the defendant's family is a proper service but it has been urged by Mr. R.K. Nokulsana by drawing my attention to paragraph No. 7(ii) of the application for revision (now treated as a memo of appeal) that the father of the defendant lives in a separate family in a separate house and they are not in good terms due to difference on account of distribution of properties. Though the summons may be served on an adult member of the defendant but this matter of service has to be effected only when there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf. When a suit has been decreed ex parte on the ground that the defendant failed to appear before the Court though the summon to the defendant was served on an adult member of his family under Order V, Rule 15 of CPC and application under Order IX Rule 13 has been filed for setting aside the ex parte decree. Court has to come to a definite finding that summon was duly served on the defendant. In the present case, considering the submission made by Mr. R.K. Nokulsana, it should have been proper for the learned Trial Court to consider the matter regarding effective service of summons. 9. I have also heard Mr. Tolpishak, learned counsel for the respondent, I think it proper that the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC should be heard afresh after giving full opportunities to the parties to substantiate their cases. Accordingly, this Misc. 9. I have also heard Mr. Tolpishak, learned counsel for the respondent, I think it proper that the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC should be heard afresh after giving full opportunities to the parties to substantiate their cases. Accordingly, this Misc. Appeal (after conversion of the Civil Revision) is allowed and the impugned order dated 2.8.2002 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Manipur East in Judl. Misc. Case No. 98/2002 (Ref.:- Money Suit No. 293/1999/6/2002) is set aside and the Trial Court is directed to re-hear the case on merit after giving opportunities to the parties to substantiate their cases. 10. For convenience of all parties and also as urged by the learned counsel on both sides, it is ordered that the parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 07.4.2003. In the meantime, there will be stay of the execution of the original decree passed by the Trial Court. 11. It is clarified that the Trial Court may pass any order regarding stay of the execution uninfluenced by the stay order passed by this Court which is only for the period upto 07.4.2003. 12. Send the records back. 13. No costs.