JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. (Oral):-Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 1.10.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ludhiana whereby allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and recalling ex parte judgement and decree dated 9.12.1999 and restoring the suit at its original number to be decided on merits. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner has filed suit for recovery against the defendants, which was decreed ex parte vide judgement and decree dated 9.12.1999. Two applications were moved under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, one by defendant No.2 and another by defendant No.4 and both the applications were allowed by the trial Court vide impugned judgement dated 1.10.2008. The Court below in paragraph 17 has observed as under: -- “I am of the considered view that it is fit case wherein the ex parte decree and judgement should be set aside. As already mentioned above, the complete address of applicant Deepak Kumar was not mentioned in the plaint. His house number was not mentioned. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that Punjabi Bagh must be larger locality of Patiala and an individual cannot be located unless and until his house number etc. are given. Further the postal endorsement shows that registered covers were redirected to Nabha and the same were received back with the report that no such person is residing at the given address. In such like circumstances the Court should have asked the plaintiff of the suit to furnish the complete address of the defendant/applicant. Moreover, the documents available on the file show that Deepak Kumar and company is proprietorship concerned and even applicant Rajesh Kumar has raised a plea that he is not the partner of the said firm. However, the Court drew the inference that the other defendants were evading the service merely on the ground that one of the partners, Rajesh Kumar had not appeared despite service. When it prima facie appears that Rajesh Kumar was not a partner with the applicant Deepak Kumar no such inference against the applicant Deepak Kumar could be drawn on the failure of Rajesh Kumar to appear before the Court. Hence this Court is of the view that the order regarding substituted service of applicant Deepak Kumar was not legal and valid. Hence this Court is of the view that the order regarding substituted service of applicant Deepak Kumar was not legal and valid. There was no ground for ordering the substituted service of applicant Deepak Kumar. Even copy of the newspapers could not have reached the applicant Deepak Kumar on account of the reasons that his incomplete address was mentioned. When the evidence on file shows that respondent No.1 did not mention complete address of the applicant when the same was available with the respondent No.1, the ex-party decree should be set aside, as there is no evidence to prove due service of the applicant.” 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the opinion of this Court in the event of no personal service on the defendant and in the event of substituted service, the Court below was justified in allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. In the opinion of this Court, every lis between the parties must be decided on merits as far as it is possible. No hypertechnical view should be taken to give walk over to either of the parties. Once it is established on record that defendants were not duly served then ex parte decree ought to have been set aside, which was rightly set aside by the trial Court. No illegality or jurisdictional error is pointed out in the impugned judgement of the trial Court allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Revision is devoid of merit, hence is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 3.8.2010. The trial Court shall decide the suit at the earliest, in any case within one year. No unnecessary adjournments shall be granted to either of the parties. ------------