JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.D. Agarwal 1. The plaintiff in Title Suit No. 5 of 2008 has filed this revision application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India so as to challenge the order dated 18.7.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj, whereby the order of ex-parte hearing of the suit against the defendant No. 4 has been vacated and the said defendant has been allowed to file written statement in the suit. Heard Mr. P.K. Roy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Das, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 and 10, who have appeared by way of filing a caveat. In my considered opinion, notices and hearing of the remaining respondents at this stage is not necessary and the case is being decided at the motion stage itself. 2. Sri Roy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent/defendant No. 4, M/s Ganesh Plantations Pvt. Ltd had already appeared in the suit through a lawyer and no written statement was filed, despite taking adjournments. Suddenly, after more than four years of filing of the suit, the respondent No. 10(not a party in the suit) filed a petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure representing himself as the Director-cum-Executive Officer of defendant No. 4 and prayed for allowing the said defendant to submit their written statement and to contest the suit. According to the Learned Counsel, the respondent No. 10 was not impleaded in the suit by name nor he had authority to file the objection since the defendant No. 4 was already represented by its Director. 3. Along with the revision application, the petitioner has submitted a copy of the "Vakalatnama" duly executed by a Director on behalf of the defendant No. 4 to show that one Sri Ranjan Roy, Advocate was appearing on behalf of the defendant No. 4. The Learned Counsel also submitted that the petition filed by the respondent No. 10 through a lawyer was also on the basis of an unsigned 'Vakalatnama' and, as such, the lawyer representing the respondent No. 10 had no authority to represent either the defendant No. 4 or his alleged attorney holder, i.e., respondent No. 10. Along with the revision application, a photocopy of the 'Vakalatnama' submitted by Sri A.R. Tapadar, advocate has also been filed, wherein there is no signature of any representative of the defendant No. 4. Along with the revision application, a photocopy of the 'Vakalatnama' submitted by Sri A.R. Tapadar, advocate has also been filed, wherein there is no signature of any representative of the defendant No. 4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the prayer to file written statement has been granted after the trial has begun and witnesses have been examined and cross-examined. 4. Per contra, Sri Das, learned Sr. counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 10 submitted that the aforesaid defendants have been allowed to file a written statement on the ground that the defendants were not served with any summon. Referring to Rule 62 of the Civil Court Rules and Orders of Gauhati High Court, the Learned Counsel submitted that the summons should be served through an officer of a court within whose jurisdiction the party resides and this mandatory provision was not followed. The Learned Counsel for the respondents produced a copy of the summon issued to the defendants No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to buttress his submission that the summon of the defendant No. 4 was actually sent to Dehradun although the office of the defendant No. 4 was situated at Dibrugarh in Assam. The Learned Counsel submitted that the respondent No. 10 was competent enough to file the application on behalf of the defendant No. 4 since a general power of attorney was executed in his favour by one of the Directors of the company namely, Sri Nirmal Kr. Beria. Sri Das, learned Sr. counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 10 also produced a photo copy of the resolution taken by the company (Defendant No. 4) to show that the respondent No. 10 has already been inducted as Director of the company in its resolution dated 14.7.2012 and as such he was competent to file the petition. 5. The Learned Counsel also relied upon a judgment of this court rendered in the case of Sushil Kumar Saha -Vs- Juran Chandra Saha; reported in (1992) 2 GLR 455 to reinforce his submission that summons should be served as per the procedure laid down under V of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Order V Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes that a summon may be served by the court either by one of its officer or by post or by courier service. 6. Order V Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes that a summon may be served by the court either by one of its officer or by post or by courier service. In the present case, as submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, summons were issued to the respondents both through court process and alternatively by registered post. The photocopy of the summon, produced by Sri Das, the Learned Counsel for the respondents corroborates the submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that summons upon the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were alternatively sent by Registered Post. 7. In the order dated 4.7.2008, it has been noticed that the summons were duly served upon the defendants No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 by registered post and the acknowledgement due cards had also returned. From that day onwards several adjournments were taken for filing of the written statements, including on behalf of the defendant No. 4. Hence, it is not understood as to how the trial court could review the order dated 4.7.2008, wherein it was categorically held that the summon upon the respondent No. 4 was duly served, by passing the impugned order. 8. It is true that in the summon it has been mentioned that the summon should be sent to the court of Dehradun. However, the Dibrugarh address of the defendant No. 4 was correctly typed. Sri Roy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a mistake in the form. Even with that mistake the summon was sent at the correct address at Dibrugarh, Assam for defendant No. 4 and he had already appeared through a lawyer and took several adjournments for filing written statement. 9. Sri Das, learned Sr. counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 10 submitted that the plaintiff must have played fraud in proving the service of summon upon the defendant No. 4. However, this submission has no force inasmuch as the counsel representing the defendant No. 4 was also representing the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3, who are also the principal defendants in the suit. Be that as it may, despite knowing the fact that the defendant No. 4 was being represented by one Sri Ranjan Roy, Advocate, no steps have been taken by the defendant No. 4 or the respondent No. 10 to prosecute him for submitting a false Vakalatnama. Be that as it may, despite knowing the fact that the defendant No. 4 was being represented by one Sri Ranjan Roy, Advocate, no steps have been taken by the defendant No. 4 or the respondent No. 10 to prosecute him for submitting a false Vakalatnama. In fact, in the petition dated 6.7.2012, there is no indication as to when the defendants No. 4 and 10 came to know about the filing of the suit. The petition has been filed after verifying the case records (as stated in paragraph 5) and despite that there is no averment that the defendants No. 4 never engaged any counsel, more particularly, Sri Ranjan Roy, Advocate to represent them nor is there any statement as to what legal action the defendant No. 4 is contemplating against the said lawyer. 10. With regard to the submission of the Learned Counsel that under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Civil Court Rules and Orders of the Gauhati High Court, the summons should be served in person or through an agent, and these requirements of law were not fulfilled. I am of the view that even without any summon a defendant can appear in a case from his personal knowledge and there is no law that a defendant cannot appear in the court without a summon. On the other hand, Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, rather, allows a person to file a caveat in the expectation of filing a suit or judicial proceedings. I have already mentioned earlier that as per various orders of the court and, more particularly, in view of the existence of the Vakalatnama in the record, the defendant No. 4 had already received summons and had appeared in the court through a lawyer but did not choose to file any written statement for about four years. 11. The above apart, in the application for vacating the ex-parte hearing, the respondent No. 10 claimed himself to be the Director of defendant No. 4. The petition was filed on 6.7.2012 whereas the company had inducted the respondent No. 10 as a Director only on 12.7.2012. The authenticity and legality of the Resolution is another aspect. In this way, the application was also filed with incorrect facts. 12. The judgment of the High Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Saha (Supra) is distinguishable on facts. The authenticity and legality of the Resolution is another aspect. In this way, the application was also filed with incorrect facts. 12. The judgment of the High Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Saha (Supra) is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the suit proceeded ex-parte on the basis of service of summon through a process server. The summon was served on being identified by the wife of the plaintiff. However, in the case before me, the summon has been served by registered post. Even for a moment it is presumed that there was some defect in issuance of summon, the fact remains that the defendant No. 4 had already appeared through a counsel and took several adjournments for filing written statement. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 18.7.2012 is hereby set aside. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. Petition allowed