ORDER Arun Mishra, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 21-1-1998 passed by I Vth Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in MJC No. 65/97, dismissing an application filed by the applicant Smt. Namita Rathore under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 4-11-1997. 2. Respondent Mukesh Rathore has filed a civil suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 seeking divorce from his wife Smt. Namita Rathore on the ground that marriage was performed on 22-2-1996 at Jabalpur, parties belonged to respective families, no dowry was demanded, an ideal marriage was performed. In the first night itself certain telephone calls were received by the wife, after hearing the call she went away for sometime, another call was received, that was received by the husband, he heard that the wife had physical relationship with the person calling. Telephone calls used to be received continuously. Namita Rathore always tried to receive the telephone calls, however, husband overlooked the conduct for quite sometime. He wanted to be separated, however, final decision was not reached. A letter (Ex.P.2) was also received by the husband. It was sent to his wife. On 9-6-1996 wife left the house. Panchayat was convened. Wife did not attend the meeting of Panchayat. Ultimately a child was born on 16-11-1997. Child was not born out of wedlock. On 6-11-1996 a report was lodged by Namita Rathore against him. He was summoned to the police station and was told by the police not to follow his wife Namita Rathore. The application was filed on 14-7-1997. 3. On 17-7-1997 case was registered as civil suit. It was ordered by the District Judge to issue a notice by ordinary mode as well as by registered post acknowledgment due for written statement and reconciliation. Date fixed was 29- 8-1997. Order-sheet dated 29-8-1997 indicates that process fee was not paid for service either by ordinary mode or by registered post acknowledgment due. The payment of PF was ordered on 29-8-1997 as before but still for the reasons best known to the plaintiff process fee was not paid by RAD nor it was paid on 17-7- 1997. Order-sheet dated 29-8-1997 indicates that process fee was not paid for service either by ordinary mode or by registered post acknowledgment due. The payment of PF was ordered on 29-8-1997 as before but still for the reasons best known to the plaintiff process fee was not paid by RAD nor it was paid on 17-7- 1997. On the next very date i.e. 6-10-1997 process server submitted an ordinary summon with an endorsement that wife has refused to accept the summon and the Court proceeded ex parte. Next date fixed was 8-10-1997. The husband examined himself. No other evidence was adduced and case was posted for judgment on 4-11-1997 and an ex parte decree was passed on that date. Thus, case was over within 5 dates; two dates for payment of process fee. 4. An application under Order 9 Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 4-12-1997 within the period of one month by the wife as soon as she came to know of ex parte judgment and decree dated 4-11-1997. It was submitted in the application that in collusion with the process server endorsement of refusal was obtained by the husband, she had never refused to accept any summon by the Court, ex parte decree was fraudulently obtained on 4-11-1997. The plaintiff by using his influence got signature of the witnesses on the summons, those persons were well acquainted with him. When she came to know of divorce she appointed Shri Sunil Jain as an Advocate who inspected the record on 3-12-1997; thereafter the application was preferred on next very date i.e. 4-12-1997 for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree. 5. In the reply filed by the husband the facts were denied. It was submitted that due service was effected, after reading the summon she had refused to accept it, thus, service was by way of refusal, hence, no case was made out to set-aside the ex parte judgment and decree of divorce passed by the trial Court on 4-11-1997. Wife examined herself in support of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure Code. On behalf of husband process server Sunil Samadhiya was examined. Husband did not enter into witness box during the course of proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure Code. 6. Wife examined herself in support of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure Code. On behalf of husband process server Sunil Samadhiya was examined. Husband did not enter into witness box during the course of proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure Code. 6. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned Counsel for appellant, has submitted that impugned order passed by the Court below is palpably illegal. The Court has ordered the issuance of summon by ordinary mode as well as by RAD, as no PF was paid by registered post acknowledgment due. First summon was not served by process server, it was sent back to the Court and the second summon was sent to the Court with an endorsement of refusal. The witnesses Prakash and Shailesh have not been examined so as to prove the factum of service by refusal. The said persons were also closed associates of the husband as stated by Smt. Namita Rathore. Statement of process server could not be relied upon. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court has acted with undue haste. Court did not make an effort for the purpose of reconciliation though it was ordered and on scanty evidence an ex parte decree for divorce was passed; even it was held by the Court that child was not born out of the wedlock without any discussion of evidence. Entire approach of the trial Court was palpably illegal, an ex parte decree was passed in slip shod and perfunctory manner on the basis of surmises and conjectures, decree has been obtained fraudulently; same deserves to be set-aside. 7. Shri Raman Patel, learned Counsel for Respondent appearing with Shri P.C. Patel, has submitted that there is absolutely nothing on record to doubt the statement of Sunil Samadhiya. In the summon issued address was correctly mentioned, endorsement of refusal was made by process server in the presence of two witnesses. He has also submitted that wife has lodged a report against the husband, husband could not keep any kind of relationship with her as she has left the house at her own, thus, no case for interference was made out in the ex parte judgment and decree and the order of rejection of application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure Code. 8. 8. It is clear that trial Court has shown undue haste in the matter. Order- sheets of main case indicates that suit was registered on 17-7-1997. Process fee was ordered to be paid by ordinary mode and RAD, it was not paid by registered post acknowledgment due. In ordinary mode the summon was issued, that was not served by process server, on 29-8-1997 again process fee was required to be paid as before, still the PF was not paid by registered post, it was paid by ordinary mode only. When there was an order passed by the Court of issuance of summon by both the modes ordinary and registered post acknowledgment due, for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, he did not make the payment of PF by registered post acknowledgment due. It appears to be a design not to pay the PF by registered post acknowledgment due, as if plaintiff knew that on the next very date process server was going to oblige him for service by refusal, that has exactly happened in the case, when there was an order of the Court to make the payment of PF by registered post, in the case of refusal endorsement made by process server, Court ought to have insisted the service by registered post acknowledgment due as ordered but the trial Court has failed in the duty to act in the fair manner and to ensure that service was properly effected that too in a matrimonial case, when paternity of child was also in question, whether the child was born out of wedlock or not, the trial Court ought to have acted with due circumspection in ensuring that an endorsement made by process server was not to oblige the plaintiff, however, trial Court did not do so. In three dates entire proceedings of suit were over, for two of the dates the plaintiff was responsible for not making due payment of PF by registered post acknowledgment due. In the matrimonial cases it is the duty cast on the Court to make an endeavour to reconcile at the same time to ensure that service is duly effected. In the circumstances of the instant case, trial Court ought to have sent the summon by RAD when it was so ordered on 17-7-1997 and 29-8-1997. 9. In the matrimonial cases it is the duty cast on the Court to make an endeavour to reconcile at the same time to ensure that service is duly effected. In the circumstances of the instant case, trial Court ought to have sent the summon by RAD when it was so ordered on 17-7-1997 and 29-8-1997. 9. Apart from that the slip shod approach of the trial Court is writ large in passing ex parte judgment and decree on 4-11-1997, the trial Court went to the extent that child born after about 10 months of the marriage, was not born out of the wedlock. The Court did not even consider the_ conclusive presumption enacted under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, with respect to such a child, particularly when trial Court was proceeding ex parte, responsibility was more, however, I am compelled to observe that trial Judge failed to act as expected of a trial Court in such a case that too involving matrimonial matters. The method and manner in which slip shod judgment was passed leave no room to doubt that trial Court has shown undue haste while passing the ex parte judgment and decree without ensuring due service of summons, as projected out during the course of the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure Code. 10. During the course of proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure there was serious allegation made against the husband that it was he who obtained the service in collusion with the process server and witnesses of service by refusal were closed associates of husband, husband did not dare to enter into witnesses box in the course of proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure Code, it was necessary for him to state that he did not influence the process server as submitted by the wife in the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure and in her statement. She has made specific allegation not only against the husband but against the witnesses Prakash and Shailesh also that they were closed associates/relatives of the plaintiff but none of those witnesses who have signed the endorsement of refusal have been examined by the plaintiff. Thus, in the circumstances, the statement of wife on oath that she did not refuse to receive the summon cannot be discarded lightly. Thus, in the circumstances, the statement of wife on oath that she did not refuse to receive the summon cannot be discarded lightly. It is not unusual that process servers are won over. I find from the entire reading of statement of Namita Rathore, wife of appellant, that she is reliable and truthful. She has withstood the lengthy cross-examination made. When we consider the statement of process server, it is found to be unreliable. Sunil Samadhiya, process server, has stated that he was not aware of the house number of Namita Rathore. He has expressed ignorance as to the factum that Namita Rathore was residing at House No. 584, Hanuman Tal. He has also stated that Shailesh and Prakash were at some distance, they were not on the spot. When these witnesses were not on the spot, obviously the endorsement of witnesses of refusal was shadowed by the cloud, refusal ought to have been made in the presence and audibility of the witnesses, the process server has not stated that in the presence of the witnesses she refused to accept-the summon. Namita Rathore statement that the witnesses of summons namely Prakash and Shailesh were close associate of the husband and their signatures were obtained to show the service fraudulently could not be ruled out. 11. Coming to the submission of learned Counsel for Respondent that wife has lodged report against the husband that she has left the house at her own and husband should not chase her, no such FIR was exhibited in the case. Whatever that may be, an ex parte decree was obtained without due service of summon. The Court has acted perfunctorily while passing ex parte judgment and decree of divorce without any consideration of relevant provision of law and without ensuring that case of adultery was made out. Thus, I have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the Court below and ex parte judgment and decree dated 4-11-1997. The trial Court is directed to give due opportunity to the appellant to substantiate the case, the written statement to be filed within 6 weeks from today as assured by Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for appellant. Parties shall keep themselves present without any further summon before the Court below as the date is given in presence of parties and their counsel. Let the parties appear before the Court below on 28th March, 2007. 12. Parties shall keep themselves present without any further summon before the Court below as the date is given in presence of parties and their counsel. Let the parties appear before the Court below on 28th March, 2007. 12. Resultantly, appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred. Appeal allowed.