ORDER Aravind Kumar, J: Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for Final Hearing. 2. In this revision petition, the petitioner is questioning the correctness and legality of the order passed in M.A.No.30/2006 dated 22.12.2006 by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & CJM, Tumkur, whereunder 'the First Appellate Court confirmed the order dated 13.11.2006 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge. (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC. Tumkur, in Misc. No.5/200l. 3. The facts in nutshell are as follows: The respondents herein had filed a suit in O.S. 928/1989 against the petitioner herein, i.e., S~M. English School, S.I.T. Extension. Tumkur, seeking the relief of declaration of title and mandatory injunction in respect of property bearing No.49/IA/Al situate at Batawadi Village. Kasaba Hobli. Tumkur District, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 90 feet and the petitioner had constructed the building in the said site and running a School in the name and style of S.M.English School. The said suit was initially dismissed for default and subsequently, it was restored on the petition filed by the respondents and thereafter on recording of evidence, the suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 26.9.2000. The petitioner herein filed Misc. No.5/2001 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree on the ground that petitioner was not served with the suit summons in 0.S.No.928/1989 subsequent to the petitioner being impleaded in the suit. On behalf of the petitioner. Syed Attar Rahaman was examined as PW. 1 and petitioner got marked documents Exs.P.1 to PA. The Respondent No.2 herein namely Haji Abdul Shukur got himself examined as R.W. 1 and got produced the order sheet in O.S. No.928/1989. On hearing the arguments and considering the evidence on record, the Court below by its order dated 13.11.2006 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner filed under Order IX Rule 13. CPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner flied appeal in M.A. No.30/2006 on the file of Additional Civil Judge, Jr.Dn. & CJM, Tumkur. On service of notice, the respondents filed their objections to the appeal memorandum. On considering the pleadings of the parties, the Appellate Court by its judgment dated 22.12.2009 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein and confirmed the order passed in Misc. & CJM, Tumkur. On service of notice, the respondents filed their objections to the appeal memorandum. On considering the pleadings of the parties, the Appellate Court by its judgment dated 22.12.2009 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein and confirmed the order passed in Misc. N 0.51 2005 dated 13.11.2006. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is seeking revision of the order dated 22.12.2009 passed in MA 30/2006. 5. I have heard Sri. Nandish on behalf of Sri. R.B. Sadashivappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Srinivasa K. learned Counsel for the Caveator/Respondent No. 1. 6. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri. Nandish, that petitioner herein was not a party at the Initial stage of the suit and subsequently, he was impleaded as 2nd defendant and on such impleading a mandatory duty was cast on the Court below under Order 1, Rule 10 (4) CPC to issue summons to the said defendant, who had been impleaded, namely, the petitioner herein and having not done so, the Court below was not justified in decreeing the suit. He would also contend that this aspect having not been considered either by Trial Court or appellate Court requires to be raised by this Court. He would submit that dismissal of the application flied under Order IX Rule 13 CPC by the Appellate Court has resulted in miscarriage in administration of justice and accordingly seeks for setting aside the order passed by the Courts below. 7. Per contra, Sri Srinivasa. K, learned Counsel for the respondents would contend that petitioner herein had appeared before the Court below on all the dates of hearing and he himself had filed the written statement on behalf of the Principal of the School and thus, he being aware of the proceedings before the Court below cannot now contend that no notice was served to him particularly having participated in the proceedings and as such seeks for dismissal of the revision petition. He also brings to the notice of the Court second proviso to Order IX, Rule 13 CPC to contend that mere irregularity in the service of notice would not be sufficient to set aside the judgment and decree by way of alternate plea. 8. He also brings to the notice of the Court second proviso to Order IX, Rule 13 CPC to contend that mere irregularity in the service of notice would not be sufficient to set aside the judgment and decree by way of alternate plea. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the following points arise for consideration: (1) Whether the Court below was justified in dismissing the Mis. No. 5/2001 ? (2) Whether the Appellate Court was correct in confirming the said order of dismissal in M.A.No.30/2006? (3) What Order? The above two points which have been formulated being interlinked with each other, are taken up for consideration together. 9. In order to consider the rival contentions raised by learned Advocates, it would be necessary to extract the provisions which has been pressed into service by both the learned counsel. "O.1 R.10 (4). Where defendant added, plaint to be amended - Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the court thinks fit, on the original defendant." "O. IX R.13 - 2nd proviso - [PROVIDED FURTHER that no court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defen4ant had notice of the ,date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiffs claim.]" 10. On perusal of the order passed in Misc.5/2001, it is noticed that the revision petitioner had taken charge of S.M. English School as Secretary during the year 1991 itself i.e., during the pendency of Suit O.S. No.928/ 89. He has been attending the Court proceedings regularly and on behalf of the Head Master of the School, he has filed the written statement by affixing his signature. He was examined as RW.1 in the Court below and in the cross examination (in Mis. 5/2001), he has categorically admitted that he was present on all the dates of hearing in the original suit. It is also admitted by him that he had instructed the counsel to file the written statement in original Suit and accordingly, at his instance, the written statement had been filed. 5/2001), he has categorically admitted that he was present on all the dates of hearing in the original suit. It is also admitted by him that he had instructed the counsel to file the written statement in original Suit and accordingly, at his instance, the written statement had been filed. The relevant cross examination has been considered by the Courts below in its entire perspective and has come to a conclusion that present revision petitioner was fully aware of the proceedings and it cannot be said that he was either ignorant of the proceedings or he was not attending to the case particularly in the back drop of his admission in the cross examination. Though it is contended that under sub-rule 4 of Rule 10 Order 1 CPC that notice is required to be served on the defendant who has been impleaded subsequently, the object underlying behind it is to ensure the person who has been impleaded would also be entitled to appear, file the written statement and contest the matter on merits and also to ensure that the principles of natural justice is not violated. In the instant case, it is seen that revision petitioner had himself appeared before the Court below on all the dates of hearing and attended the Court. He had also filed the written statement on behalf of the Principal and he himself had affixed his signature. In view of this admission the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted and the same is liable to be rejected and it is accordingly rejected. 11. Yet another aspect required to be noticed by this Court as canvassed by Counsel for respondent is under the second proviso to Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the Courts should be slow in setting aside the decree passed merely on the ground of irregularity in the service of summons, particularly, if the defendant who claims to have been not served with the notice would not be put to prejudice. In the instant case, it is seen that very same revision petitioner had appeared, contested the matter, filed the written statement by affixing his signature and hence, no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to him in the event, his prayer is rejected. The prejudice by way of violation of principles of natural justice would occur only when it results in change of decision as otherwise it would not. The prejudice by way of violation of principles of natural justice would occur only when it results in change of decision as otherwise it would not. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim University and others Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan reported in 2000 (7) SCC 529 would be squarely applicable wherein it is held that in such instances "Doctrine of Useless Formality Theory" would step in. Accordingly, the prayer made in the revision petition cannot be granted and the orders passed by the Courts below does not call for interference. 12. It is also contended by Sri.Nandish, learned counsel for the petitioner that under sub-rule 5 of Rule 10 of Order I CPC the proceedings against the person who has been added as defendant would deemed to have been commenced only on service of summons and not otherwise. It is seen from the orders passed by the Courts below that a defendant who has remained exparte for reasons as may be assigned in a particular case is required to he examined. In the instant case, the defendant/revision petitioner was appearing before the Court below had the knowledge of the suit and was participating in the proceedings and as such, the contention of the petitioner that suit is deemed to have been commenced only on service of notice is required to be examined only for the purpose of rejection and accordingly it is hereby rejected. 13. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. 14. In view of the orders passed above, Misc. Civil 2075/2010 does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly rejected.