Judgment 1. The petitioners have filed the civil revision petition against the order dated 29.10.2004 passed by Subordinate Judge, Munger in Title Suit No. 62 of 2004 whereby the written statement filed by petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 has been rejected and the case has been fixed for ex-parte hearing against petitioner no. 2. 2. The plaintiffs/opposite party filed the abovementioned suit for a declaration that they are landlords and the petitioners are tenant of the suit premises and also for decree of arrears of rent of the suit premises for the period from February, 2002 to December, 2002. Summonses were directed to be issued on 1.5.2004. On 25.6.2004 a petition was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs- opposite party for substituted service which was allowed on 28.6.2004. The proforma was prepared by the Nazir for publication in the local newspapers. On 12.7.2004 the office reported with regard to tentative cost of publication of notice in the local newspapers. A petition was filed by the plaintiffs- opposite party on 20.7.2004 for ex-parte hearing of the suit. The petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 appeared in the suit on 12.8.2004. A rejoinder was filed on behalf of the petitioners stating therein that notice was not served upon the petitioners. The specific case of the petitioner no. 4 was that his native place is at Darbhanga and there was unprecedented flood in Darbhanga and as such he had gone to Darbhanga to rescue the members of his family. Similarly, petitioner no. 1 was residing at Manipal in the State of Karnataka and summons against him was returned with endorsement that English Forms are required. The defendant- petitioner no. 2 was residing at Calcutta and he did not appear in the suit. The written statement was filed on behalf of petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 on 1.9.2004. Prior to filing of the written statement a petition was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs on 23.8.2004 to debar the petitioners from filing written statement. However, the said petition of the plaintiffs was heard and disposed of on 29.10.2004 and the written statement filed by the petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 was rejected and the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing against petitioner no. 2 and petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 were allowed to contest the suit without written statement by the order impugned. 3. 1, 3 and 4 was rejected and the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing against petitioner no. 2 and petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 were allowed to contest the suit without written statement by the order impugned. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no notice was served upon the petitioners and the plaintiffs-opposite party also accepting the same, filed a petition for substituted service. However, the petitioners on coming to know about the case themselves appeared and filed written statement within time. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that notice was served on petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 but they did not appear and supported the order impugned. 4. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials available on the record this much is obvious that summons were ordered to be issued. The plaintiffs-opposite party themselves filed an application for substituted service. The said application was allowed. On 12.7.2004 the office reported the tentative cost to be deposited for purpose of publication of notice in the national newspapers. The petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 appeared on coming to know about the case on 12.8.2004. The written statement was filed on their behalf on 11.9.2004. It is the contention of the petitioners that on coming to know about the case, they appeared and filed written statement within a month. So far as petitioner no. 4 is concerned it is his stand that his native place is in the district of Darbhanga and there was unprecedented flood in that area and he had gone there to rescue his family and as such he could not appear prior to 12.8.2004. The reason assigned by petitioner no. 4 has not been disputed, therefore, it can be treated as a special circumstance for not appearing in the suit but the court below rejected the plea on flimsy ground that no document for taking leave was filed. Similarly, the summons of petitioner no. 1 was returned unserved with endorsement that English forms required as he was living in the State of Karnataka, moreover the plaintiffs-opposite party themselves were satisfied that summons were not served on the defendants-petitioner and as such petition was filed for substituted service which was allowed by the court below. Similarly, the summons of petitioner no. 1 was returned unserved with endorsement that English forms required as he was living in the State of Karnataka, moreover the plaintiffs-opposite party themselves were satisfied that summons were not served on the defendants-petitioner and as such petition was filed for substituted service which was allowed by the court below. In the order impugned it has been stated that there was service of notice under registered cover but the same is also defective as provision of Order 5 Rule 16 of the C.P.C. has not been complied with as there is no signature of the person, who received the notice. It is well settled rule of law that the procedural law is always used to achieve the ends of justice. 5. Thus, on consideration this much is obvious that the court below has committed error in debarring/rejecting the written statement filed by the petitioners and fixing the case for ex-parte hearing against petitioner no. 2. 6. Thus, on consideration as discussed above, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order impugned is hereby set aside.