1. This civil revision by the plaintiff is directed against the order of Sub Judg,e Srinagar dated 22.4.2004 in suit no. 43 of 1998 by which he set aside exparte decree. The Court held that in terms of provisions of order V of the Code of Civil procedure it is essential that copy of the summons be delivered to the person to whom it has been issued and in case of refusal, to affix a copy of summons at some conspicuous place and these facts must be mentioned in the report of the process server. 2. In the instant case, as per the report of process server, he went to the court premises to serve summons on the defendant Mumtaz Ahmad Shah who is a practicing advocate. He after going through the contents of notice returned it to him (process server) refusing to acknowledge the receipt. The process server got signatures of four witnesses in token of attempt to serve summons on the defendant. 3. Mr. Hessian submitted that irregularity in service of summons cannot be ground to set export decree. In this connection he referred second proviso to rule 13 of order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He stated that the fact that the defendant had engaged Mr. G. A. Katoo as his counsel (even though he is a practising advocate himself) shows that he was aware of the suit. He also referred to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the defendants application for setting aside ex prate decree wherein it is stated that it was the negligence of the said counsel that the suit was decreed ex prate against him. 4. Rule 19A of order 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that in addition to, and simultaneously with, the issue of summons for service in the manner provided in rules 9 to 19 (both inclusive), the court shall also direct the summons to be served by registered post with acknowledgement due. Rule 20, further provides for substituted service where the court is satisfied that there are reasons to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service. May be, as stated by counsel for the petitioner, the defendant had engaged a counsel namely Mr. G. A. Katoo but it is not stated that he had filed power (sic). May be, as stated by counsel for the petitioner, the defendant had engaged a counsel namely Mr. G. A. Katoo but it is not stated that he had filed power (sic). In fact, the statement is that he did not appear. In the absence of proof of service as per different provisions of order V the so called engagement can not be ground to negative defendant™s case It is to be kept in mind that it is the obligation of the Court to serve notice also by registered post and by substituted service, in addition to the ordinary mode of service by summons. Another important aspect is that ex prate decrees are frowned upon by superior courts. It is in the interest of justice that the decree is passed on contest. The court below having applied its discretion in favour of the defendant and set ex prate decree, it would not be proper exercise of jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to interfere with the order that would have the effect of restoring ex prate decree. In the result, the revision is dismissed.