ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 07.02.2018 passed by learned by Civil Judge, Dungla, whereby the application preferred under Order 9 Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code was rejected. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and other co-defendant. The Trial Court issued summons to the respondents on 26.06.2012 and fixed the next date of appearance as 27.06.2012. The summons issued to the petitioner/defendant No. 6 Arun Kumar who is the present petitioner were refused on the ground that Arun Kumar is the adopted son of Nana Lal whereas in the summons it has been written Arun Kumar S/o Manohar Lal. A report to that effect was also filed before learned trial Court. The petitioner did not choose to appear before learned trial Court and learned trial Court after giving reasonable opportunities, passed an order on 10.04.2013 to proceed against the petitioner/defendant No. 6 ex-parte. The petitioner, in these circumstances, after lapse of about four years and five months preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the order dated 10.04.2013, whereby the service upon the petitioner/defendant No. 6 was taken to have been completed and drawn the ex-parte proceedings against him. This application was rejected by learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 07.02.2018. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial Court fell into error while rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC on the ground that service against the petitioner/defendant No. 6 could not have been taken to be completed as the petitioner/defendant No. 6 was not duly served. He further submits that even as per the report of the process server, it has been mentioned that Arun Kumar was found on the address given who refused to accept the summons on account of he being the adopted son of Nana Lal. He submits that since the mandatory provisions of Order 5 Rule 17 CPC have not been complied with in the present case, therefore, service cannot be deemed to have been completed upon the petitioner/defendant No. 6. He submits that since the mandatory provisions of Order 5 Rule 17 CPC have not been complied with in the present case, therefore, service cannot be deemed to have been completed upon the petitioner/defendant No. 6. Learned counsel emphasized that even if the defendant No. 6 was adopted son of Nana Lal and biological son of Manohar Lal, it was incumbent upon the process server that on refusal of taking summon, the procedure under Order 5 Rule 17 CPC should have been effected by affixing a copy of those summons on the conspicuous place of the house identified by two witnesses. In nutshell, learned counsel submits that the procedure provided under Order 5 Rule 17 CPC have not been complied with, therefore, service upon the petitioner/defendant No. 6 cannot be deemed to have been completed in view of the provisions of order 9 Rule 6 CPC wherein, the definition of ‘duly served’ has been mentioned. Learned counsel, in these circumstances, submits that learned trial Court has committed an error while rejecting his application and undertaking the proceedings ex-parte in the suit preferred by the plaintiff/respondent. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 07.02.2018 may be quashed and learned trial Court may be directed to allow the petitioner to file the written statement and participate in the proceedings. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent submits that the fact that the petitioner/defendant No. 6 was the son of Manohar Lal cannot be disputed. Although he may have gone in adoption, the fact remains that Manohar Lal is the biological father of the petitioner/defendant No. 6 Arun Kumar and since the service upon the petitioner/defendant No. 6 Arun Kumar has been effected by the process server, therefore, for all intents and purposes, it will be deemed that service upon the petitioner/defendant No. 6 is complete. He further submits that mere the technical formality of not affixing the notice upon the house will not nullify the entire process of serving the notice upon the petitioner/defendant No. 6. He further submits that mere the technical formality of not affixing the notice upon the house will not nullify the entire process of serving the notice upon the petitioner/defendant No. 6. Learned counsel further submits that conduct of the petitioner/defendant No. 6 is also shady to the extent that the petitioner waited for four and half years to appear before learned trial Court and once the ex-parte proceedings were ordered to be undertaken against him, he appeared before learned trial Court by filing an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. He submits that the conduct of the petitioner clearly shows that delay tactics were employed by the petitioner/defendant No. 6 to delay the adjudication of the suit proceedings preferred by the plaintiffs. He, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted in the order passed by learned trial Court and the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the order dated 07.02.2018 as well as the other relevant documents. 7. The array of the respondents shown in the suit preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs reflects the petitioner at serial No. 6 being Arun Kumar S/o Manohar Lal and the notices have been issued to the petitioner Arun Kumar on the residential address. It is true that service has been effected on Arun Kumar by the process server and Arun Kumar refused to take the summons on the ground that the petitioner/defendant No. 6 is not the Arun Kumar S/o Manohar Lal as he has gone in adoption to Nanalal. Though this Court is prima facie of the view that the service upon the petitioner/defendant No. 6 was sufficient but the mandatory provision of Order 5 Rule 17 CPC shows that on refusal being made by the person on whom services to be effected, the process server is required to affix the notice on the conspicuous place of the house and that too, in presence of two independent witnesses. Further, a report to that aspect is also required to be made that he has affixed the service of notice on the conspicuous place of the house identified by two witnesses. Since this procedure has not been followed in the present case, therefore, learned trial Court fell into error by taking into consideration that service of notice has been effected upon the petitioner/defendant No. 6. Since this procedure has not been followed in the present case, therefore, learned trial Court fell into error by taking into consideration that service of notice has been effected upon the petitioner/defendant No. 6. This Court also finds that as per the Order 9 Rule 6 CPC in the present case, the service cannot be effected upon the petitioner/defendant No. 6 as duly served. In these circumstances, when the application has been preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, learned trial Court fell into error while rejecting the application on the ground that service upon the petitioner/defendant No. 6 was complete. Since this Court finds that service upon the petitioner/defendant No. 6 was not complete and the petitioner/defendant No. 6 cannot be termed to have been served with the notice “as duly served” the trial Court fell into error by undertaking the proceeding ex-parte in this case. 8. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 07.02.2018 (Annex.P/6) is quashed and set aside and the application preferred by the petitioner/defendant No. 6 under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC is allowed. The petitioner/defendant No. 6 is directed to appear before learned trial Court within a period of fifteen days from today and submit his written statement. Learned trial Court thereafter may proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 9. It is made clear that if the written statement is not preferred before learned trial Court within 15 days then the order dated 07.02.2018 will come into force. 10. The stay application and other pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.