Judgment V.N.Sinha, J. 1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.8.2002 passed by Munsif, 1st, Siwan, in miscellaneous case No. 31 of 2002 whereby the prayer to set-aside the ex parte decree passed in title suit No. 217 of 1992 was refused. 2. It appears from the impugned order that the court below proceeded on the basis that in title suit No. 217 of 1992 the defendants were not only served with the summons but they also appeared and prayed for time and on that basis the court below refused the prayer to set aside the ex-parte decree. 3. Counsel for the petitioners in support of the petition has submitted that the subject matter of this suit is land measuring 4 Katha 11 Dhurs which was purchased by the opposite party No.1 on 11.12.1989 & 18.12.1991. Having purchased those lands the T.S. No. 217 of 1992 was filed for declaration of title and confirmation of possession against the petitioners while this suit was pending it was submitted by the petitioners that the opposite parties filed even the other suit, i.e., title suit No. 54 of 1993 in regard to encroachment over portions of 11 Dhurs purchased by the opposite party on 18.12.1991 against the defendant-petitioners in the court of Munsif, Ist, Siwan. Contention of the defendantpetitioners is that they appeared in the title suit No. 54 of 1993 and contested the same which is still pending, while they continued Pairvi in the second suit they learnt about the filing and disposal of the first suit and pendency of the execution proceedings bearing miscellaneous case No. 12 of 1998 when they appeared in miscellaneous case No. 12 of 1998 they continued contesting the same instead of filing miscellaneous case for setting-aside the ex parte decree under wrong advice continued to contest the execution case (miscellaneous case) No. 12 of 1998 and, belatedly, filed the present miscellaneous case No. 31 of 2002 which was dismissed under the impugned order holding that they had knowledge of the earlier suit as summons were served on them. Counsel for the petitioners submitted before me that while they contested the second suit they learnt about the execution case (miscellaneous case) No. 12 of 1998 inspected the records of the connected suit and having learnt that not only the summons were served on impersonators but somebody impersonating them has also filed vakalatnama and time petition as well in the T.S. No. 217/1992 they filed the instant miscellaneous case which has been dismissed holding that summons were rightly served and time was prayed for by filing a petition. 4. I have gone through the impugned order. The court below has not recorded any finding on the contention that summons were not served bala bala and impersonators did not appear on their behalf after receipt of the summons. As the entire case in the miscellaneous case is on the basis of erroneous service of summons and erroneous advice tendered by the counsel and the matter has been decided EK parte, I deem it expedient in the interest of justice to set-aside the impugned order and allow the petition filed by the defendantpetitioners for setting-aside the ex parti decree with direction to the court below to proceed expeditiously and, in any case, conclude the trial within three months. The petitioners are directed to appear in the court below on 17th of April, 2004 and, thereafter, not to pay for any unnecessary adjournment. 5. Petition is allowed. No cost.