JUDGMENT:- Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and IS heard by consent. 2. The application for setting aside ex parte decree filed by the present respondents being Miscellaneous Civil Application No.73/1998 was rejected by the trial court by order dated 16th December. 2002. 3. The trial court rejected the application for setting aside ex parte decree on the ground that the applicant had knowledge about the decree since:- (i) On the date of judgment since the defendant was present in the Courts, (ii) That. the certified copy of decree passed \vas brought on record in revenue proceedings and it was on record. (iii) Further the judgment of Tahsildar in said proceedings was noted by the Advocate for defendant. 4. This order was challenged by the present petitioners by filing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.4/2003. 5. Learned appellate Judge apparently examined the case on grounds as provided in Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for setting aside ex parte decree. The first appellate court found that while the knowledge of proceedings could be attributed the fact of service as required according to law. has not been proved. 6. The first appellate court then found that the service of suit summons was not proper due to failure of bailiff to affix suit summons on a conspicuous place of the house and draw the panchanama thereof. Consequently the court has allowed the appeal and by setting aside the order of trial court, allowed respondent's application for setting aside ex parte decree. 7. Heard the petitioner's Advocate at length. All submissions of the petitioner in support of the petition are aimed at attributing the knowledge of decree. 8. According to the petitioner, refusal panchanama of suit summons recorded by the bailiff was liable to be read as sufficient evidence of proof of service. 9. Petitioner further urges that said refusal will have to be read as service in the light of Rule 9, Sub-Rule 5 of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. while considering Rule 17 thereof. 10. Submission of Mr. S. S. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioner, that Rule 9, Sub-Rule 5 of Order V will have to be conjOll1tly read With Rule 17, will have to be received with a caveat. In a case where party elects to serve Summons Under Rule 9, even then in proceedings under Rule 13. Order IX. 10. Submission of Mr. S. S. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioner, that Rule 9, Sub-Rule 5 of Order V will have to be conjOll1tly read With Rule 17, will have to be received with a caveat. In a case where party elects to serve Summons Under Rule 9, even then in proceedings under Rule 13. Order IX. where the fact of service is a fact of matter which has to be independently viewed and examined. Deemed service under Rule 9 of Order V will empower the court to proceed ex parte, but the jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte order under Order IX, Rule ]3 is kept unfettered including grounds thereof. as given in Rule 13 of Order IX. On this touchstone, judgment of the first appellate court will have to be scrutinized to find out whether it is rendered in accordance with law. 11. If the interpretation done by the petitioner is accepted, it would result in attempting to read said rule in isolation and 1n departure to the basic object 01 and principle that service of notice will have to be In accordance with law. The submission that Rule 17 will have to be read conjointly with Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 9 of Order V IS based on ingenuity, but it is 10 departure to collective effect of rules discussed in para No.1O above. 12. The judgment of the first appellate court holding that the service was not effected in accordance with law and therefore the application for setting aside ex parte decree was liable to be allowed, is rendered within four corners of the jurisdiction of the court. The said judgment is based on just and should reasons. In these premise, no interference is called for. Rule is discharged with costs. Petition dismissed.