JUDGMENT Mr. Rajiv Narain Raina, J. (Oral):- This petition arises out of a suit for partition pending at the trial Court at Ganaur. The petitioner is a co-sharer of joint property along with his brother Sushil Kumar. A third party claiming to have purchased a share from the deceased brother of the petitioner and Sushil Kumar has filed the suit for partition in which the petitioner is arrayed as a codefendant. He has been proceeded ex parte vide order dated 18.7.2012 for the reason that he had refused to accept Court summons sought to be served on him in the Court premises. His complaint is that he was not served in the manner provided by law at his residence. His application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was not contested by the plaintiff who gave his no objection to the petitioner for him to contest the case on merits. However, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ganaur has thought it fit to decline the application to achieve which end he has gone into a lengthy discourse on the issue of service of summons whether it was good or bad. 2. When substantial justice is to be done, the Court should take an overview of the list between the parties and settle it on merits. This is especially true in partition proceedings where property is to be divided. What would be the use of the partition proceedings where one of the party is ex parte. It would only create difficulty in drawing up workable solutions by division of property after rights, title and interest in joint property including that of the third property are determined. 3. Notice in this petition is not required to be issued as the plaintiff has already given no objection to the petitioner to contest the case on merits. 4. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner would remain at liberty to file the written statement on record and contest the case on merits. ---------0.B.S.0------------