Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present application is directed against the order, by which the trial Court has refused to allow the application filed by the defendant-petitioner for recalling the judgment and decree in terms of Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. This order was affirmed by the appellate authority, which has been brought by the defendant-applicant-petitioner to this Court. 3. Sri Siya Ram Sahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that in terms of Order 9, Rule 13, second proviso, read with the Judgment of the Apex Court since reported in AIR 2002 SC 2370 , paragraph- 11 the petitioner could at the best said to be aware of ther proceeding, but not being aware of the date of hearing. It was a fit case, in which the Judgment and decree should have been recalled and the case heard. On the other hand, Sri Dwivedi, learned Sr. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs-Opp. Parties has submitted that in the present case there is concurrent finding of fact by the two Courts with regard to regularity of service of notice and that being so, it would be deemed that the notices having been duly served, the defendant had deliberately abstained and that being so, the Courts rightly did not recall the Judgment and decree. 4. Having heard the parties, I find that both the Courts have accepted due service of summons. They have also accepted that summons by post was also duly served. They have also accepted valid service in terms of substituted service being publication in Newspaper, referred to as Gazette in the order. In that view of the matter, I do not think it is open for this Court in revisional jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of facts of the two Courts below. 5. Coming to the decision of the Supreme Court, as referred to above, it is clear that from the reference to paragraph-11 thereon that there it was a case of non-service of summons. It was not a case of irregular service of summons. 5. Coming to the decision of the Supreme Court, as referred to above, it is clear that from the reference to paragraph-11 thereon that there it was a case of non-service of summons. It was not a case of irregular service of summons. In that case, the Apex Court held that where there is non-service of summons, but it is alleged that the party had notice of the proceedings otherwise that by itself was not sufficient: In such a case, in terms of Order-9, Rule-13, second proviso, it must be shown that he was aware of the next date of hearing. The facts of that case and the present case are totally opposite. In the present case, both the Courts having accepted due service of summons, which itself predicates knowledge of next date it cannot be said that there was any just and reasonable cause for non-appearance. The case set up by the defendant was of non-service and that being negative his defence against non-appearance vanished. 6. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this application and, accordingly, it is dismissed.