JUDGMENT As per Hon'ble Shri D.R. Deshmukh, J. :- 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 21-9-99 passed by Civil Judge Class-I Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon in Misc. Civil Case No. 1193 whereby the application of the respondents/defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. read with Section 5 of Limitation Act to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 22-4-1992 passed in favour of the petitioner/ plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 36-A/91 was allowed. 2. Brief facts are that in Civil Suit No.36-A/91 filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff, summons were issued to the non-applicants/defendants. The summons of defendants Khorbehareen and Suman were returned by the Process Server Satanand Singh with the endorsement that on 27-1-1991 when he went to village Manditarai, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon for service of summons on Khorbehareen and Sumanlal Verma, both these defendants refused to receive the summons and a copy of the plaint whereupon he affixed a copy of the summons on the house of the defendants and made endorsement to that effect on the summons. These defendants were proceeded ex parte by the trial Court. Thereafter, a compromise was filed between the parties i.e. plaintiff-Kunjlal and defendant No.1 Lakhanlal in Civil Suit No. 36-A/91. Compromise decree was passed on 22-4-92 whereby the applicants/ defendants were restrained by a permanent injunction from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit lands mentioned in schedule-A. 3. Defendants Khorbehareen Bai and Sumanlal Verma made an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against them on 19-01-93 on the ground that plaintiff-Kunjlal and defendant Lakhanlal had acted in collusion with each other and obtained the said compromise decree without the knowledge of these defendants. Defendant Khorbehreen was an illiterate and defendant Suman lived in Dongargarh and not in Manditarai, therefore, it was pleaded that the defendants Khorbehreen and Sumanlal Verma had no knowledge of the civil suit instituted against them and that summons of suit was not duly served against them. 4. In reply, the plaintiff-Kunjlal and defendant No.1 Lakhanlal alleged that summons were duly served upon the applicants/defendants Khorbehreen and Sumanlal Verma since they had refused to accept the summons whereupon the process server had affected the service of summons by affixture, as contemplated by Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. 5. 4. In reply, the plaintiff-Kunjlal and defendant No.1 Lakhanlal alleged that summons were duly served upon the applicants/defendants Khorbehreen and Sumanlal Verma since they had refused to accept the summons whereupon the process server had affected the service of summons by affixture, as contemplated by Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. 5. Applicants/defendants Khorbehreen and Sumanlal Verma gave statement on oath in the lower Court in support of their contentions and examined Nankuram as A.W3 while the non-applicants examined Defendant No.1 Lakhanlal and the Process Server Satanand Singh in support of their contentions. Kunjlal did not enter the witness box. 6. The learned lower Court after considering the rival contentions and the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the Process Server had not explained as to how he came to know the location of the house of the applicants/defendants and had also not mentioned in his report, the names of witness in whose presence he had affixed the summons at the house of the applicants/defendants. It thus held that the summons were not duly served on defendants Khorbehareen and Sumanlal Verma. It also held that Khorbehareen had no knowledge of the ex parte judgment and decree passed by the lower Court in Civil Suit No. 36-A/91. Consequently, the lower Court condoned the delay and allowed the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 22-4-92. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff has mainly contended that from the testimony of Process Server Satan and Singh A.W.2 and a perusal of the report given by him on the summons of Khorbehareen and Sumanlal Verma, it is crystal clear that the summons was served by affixture on these defendants in accordance with law. It was therefore contended that the order passed by the lower Court cannot be sustained. On the other hand, counsel for non-applicants/defendants have contended that there is a clear breach of the mandatory provision under Order V Rule 17 C.P.C. by the Process Service since the names and addresses of the persons by whom the house of the defendants was identified and in whose presence the copy of summons was affixed has not been shown in the report of the process server on the back of the summons. They also placed reliance upon Praveen Kumar and others Vs. They also placed reliance upon Praveen Kumar and others Vs. Suresh Chand and others, while arguing that once the trial Court has set aside the ex parte decree on the ground that the process was not duly served on the defendants, the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under revision ought not to have interfered with the finding recorded by the lower Court. Reliance was also placed on Sushi! Kumar Sabharwal Vs. Gurpreet Singh and other, in support of the above contention. 8. Order V Rule 17 (reproduced below) lays down that the procedure for service of summons upon the defendants when defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found . "17. Procedure when defendant refused to accept service, or cannot be found. – Where the defendant or his agent or such other person as aforesaid refused to sign the acknowledgment, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence cannot find the defendant, (who is absent from his residence at the time when service is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time), and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, and shall then return the original to the Court from which it was issued, with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so, and the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed. 9. It is thus dear that the process Server Must comply with the following conditions after he has effected service of summons by affixture upon refusal by the defendant:- (i) that the serving officer must endorse a report on the summons stating that he has so affixed the copy of summons. (ii) the report must contain the circumstances under which service by affixture was done. (ii) the report must contain the circumstances under which service by affixture was done. (iii) the report must also contain the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified. and (iv) the report must show the name and address of the person (if any) in whose presence the copy was affixed. The above provision has been made to provide the Court with sufficient material to verify the correctness of the endorsement of service of summons by affixture upon refusal by defendants. It also acts as a safeguard against service of summons by affixture by unscrupulous Process Servers acting in collusion with the plaintiff. 10. In the instant case, I find that there is total non-compliance of condition No. (iii) & (iv) mentioned above. Process Server Satan and Singh has in paragraph 7 of his testimony stated that he had affixed the summons in the presence of witness Nanukram but neither the name of Nanukram has been mentioned by the Process Server in his report nor the summons bear the signature of Nanukram. The non-applicants/defendants had examined Nanukram as A.W.3 who had categorically stated on oath that the Process Server of the Court never came to serve the notice of Court in his presence and never affixed the summons on the house of the defendants. This testimony is wholly unrebutted in cross-examination and completely falsifies the statement of Process Server Satan and Singh A.W.2 in paragraph 7 that he had affixed the summons in presence of Nankuram. Process Server Satan and Singh has in paragraph 8 also admitted that he did not enquire about the house of Khorbehareen and Sumanlal Verma from the persons residing in the neighboring houses. He also admits that he has not mentioned the names of those persons who had directed him to the house of the defendants Khorbehareen and Sumanlal Verma. It is pertinent to note that Lakhanlal A. W.1 who was the defendant No.1 in this case has admitted that the process server had gone for serving the notice to village Manditarai. He also admits that he has not mentioned the names of those persons who had directed him to the house of the defendants Khorbehareen and Sumanlal Verma. It is pertinent to note that Lakhanlal A. W.1 who was the defendant No.1 in this case has admitted that the process server had gone for serving the notice to village Manditarai. However, he has very cleverly stated that he has no knowledge whether the defendants had accented the notice or not Lakhanlal was the defendant in Civil Suit No. 36-A/91 and he lived in village Manditarai itself, therefore, the Process Server Satanand Singh would have contacted Lakhanlal on reaching Manditarai and would have gone to the house of the defendants along with him. Lakhanlal is the person with whom the plaintiff got the compromise effected after the defendants Khorbehareen and Sumanlal Verma were proceeded ex parte on the basis of the report of the process server in the summons. It thus raises a strong suspicion that there had been a collusion between the plaintiff and Lakhanlal whereupon the process server returned the summons with a false note of affixture upon refusal by the defendants Khorbehareen and Sumanlal Verma. The defendants Khorbehareen and Sumanlal Verma have also entered the witness box and have denied on oath about any notice of the suit or any affixture thereof on their house. Their testimony in cross examination is unrebutted. Thus these circumstances raise a strong suspicion about the manner in which the summons of Khorbehareen and Sumanlal Verma were reported to have been affixed on their house by Process Server Satanand Singh. The non-mention of the names and addresses of the persons by whom the house of the defendants khorbehareen and Sumanlal Verma was identified and in whose presence the copy of the summons was affixed shows that the mandatory provision of Order V Rule 17 was not complied with by the process server, and therefore, the report of the process server could not be relied on for proceeding ex parte against the defendants. 11. In Sushil Kumar Sabharwal Vs. Gurpreet Singh and others, it was observed by the Apex Court that the date appointed for hearing in the suit for which the defendant is summoned to appear is a significant date of hearing requiring conscious application of mind on the part of the Court to satisfy itself on the service of summons. 11. In Sushil Kumar Sabharwal Vs. Gurpreet Singh and others, it was observed by the Apex Court that the date appointed for hearing in the suit for which the defendant is summoned to appear is a significant date of hearing requiring conscious application of mind on the part of the Court to satisfy itself on the service of summons. Any default or casual approach on the part of the Court may result in depriving a person of his valuable right to participate in the hearing and may result in a defendant suffering an ex parte decree or proceeding in the suit wherein he was deprived of hearing for no fault of his. 12. In view of the non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Order V Rule 17 C.P.C. relating to mentioning the names and address of persons who identified the house and in whose presence the copy was affixed clearly vitiates the service of summons by affixture. It amounts to non-service of summons on the defendant which provides the ground to the defendant for making an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. 13. Having considered the rival contentions and after perusal of the record and for the reasons mentioned above this Court finds that there is nothing on record to show that the learned lower Court had failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Placing reliance on Praveen Kumar and others Vs. Suresh Chand and others, and in the above mentioned circumstances, no interference in the order passed by the lower Court is called for in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court Consequently revision stands dismissed. Stay order dated 3-11-1998 stands vacated. Since the Civil Suit pertains to the year 1991, the lower Court is directed to expeditiously dispose of the Civil Suit within a period of six months and report compliance to this Court. Revision Rejected.