JUDGMENT : Harisankar V. Menon, J. This first appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule (1)(d) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the ‘Code’), against the order dated 31.10.2018 in I.A.No.3909 of 2015 in O.S.No.295 of 2012 of the IInd Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. By this order, an application filed by the appellant herein, who was the defendant in the suit, for setting aside an ex parte decree dated 30.06.2012 exercising the powers under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code was dismissed. 2. The appellant was the defendant in O.S No.295 of 2012 referred above. This suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein, for realization of Rs. 25 lakhs from the appellant-defendant; a declaration to the effect that document No.666 of 2006 of SRO, Ernakulam is a sham one, not binding on the plaintiff and also for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant-defendant from trespassing into the plaint scheduled properties. The appellant-defendant was set ex parte by the trial court on account of which the suit was decreed on 30.06.2012, setting aside document No.666 of 2006 of SRO, Ernakulam; restraining the appellant-defendant by a permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for and also permitting the respondent-plaintiff to recover Rs.25 lakhs with interest as prayed for. As the above decree was an ex parte one, the appellant-defendant presented I.A.No.3909 of 2015 in O.S.No.295 of 2015 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the ex parte decree. In this application, it was contended that the summons was not duly served on the appellant-defendant, on account of which, he could not appear before the trial court. It was pointed out before the trial court that the service of summons was allegedly carried out by service on an adult member of the defendant’s family without there being a positive order to that effect by the trial court. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in Arundas v. Priji [ 2017 (5) KHC 693 ] to contend that such service of summons on an adult member of the defendant’s family without an order from the court for such type of service, is illegal. However, the trial court rejected the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code by its order dated 31.10.2018. However, the trial court rejected the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code by its order dated 31.10.2018. Though a review application is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code, the same is also rejected by the trial court, by its order dated 24.06.2019. 3. The appellant-defendant has filed the present appeal against the order dated 31.10.2018 of the IInd Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, in I.A.No.3909 of 2015 in O.S No.295 of 2012. 4. Before this Court also the appellant-defendant relied on the judgment in Arundas [ 2017 (5) KHC 693 ]. However, a Division Bench of this Court, doubted the correctness of the dictum laid down in Arundas [ 2017 (5) KHC 693 ] by an order dated 16.03.2020 and referred this appeal for consideration by a Full Bench. 5. This appeal was thereafter posted for consideration by a Full Bench pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice. The Full Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, by its judgment dated 21.6.2022 found that, for the Process Server to effect service of summons under Order V Rule 15 of the Code on any adult member of the defendant’s family residing with him, no specific order from the court is required and that the only requirement was that the Process Server has to enter fully and exactly the manner in which the process was served and also that on enquiry with the adult member of the defendant’s family who is residing with him, he is satisfied that there is no likelihood of the defendant being found at his residence within a reasonable time and that there is no agent empowered to accept the service of summons. Finding thus, the judgment in Arundas [ 2017 (5) KHC 693 ] was overruled by the Full Bench, directing the appeal to be listed for consideration before the bench as per the roster. This judgment of the Full Bench has since been reported as Biju Paramu v. Mohanan [2022 (4) KLT 341]. 6. This appeal is posted before us, pursuant to the orders of the Full Bench referred above. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 8. 6. This appeal is posted before us, pursuant to the orders of the Full Bench referred above. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant contended that even going by the law laid down by the Full Bench referred above, there is no proper service of summons on the defendant and hence the refusal on the part of the trial court to set aside the exparte decree is liable to be reversed. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents, sought to support the impugned order. 9. O.S.No.295 of 2005 was decreed ex parte on 30.06.2012. The appellant-defendant presented I.A.No.3909 of 2015 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code, pointing out that he was residing at Ernakulam and at his wife house at Thrissur, that he was not aware about the suit on account of which, the suit was uncontested. It is also pointed out that the appellant-defendant came to know about the decree only on 22.09.2015 and the application is presented for setting aside the ex parte decree with reference to the said date of knowledge. The trial court proceeded on the basis that the address of the appellant-defendant is the same as given in the plaint, that the process server has deposed that the summons was served on the defendant’s sister since she was residing with the defendant, on account of which, there is compliance with the procedures stipulated under Order V Rule 15 of the Code. 10. Order IX Rule 13 of the Code reads as follows: “13. 10. Order IX Rule 13 of the Code reads as follows: “13. Setting aside decree ex parte against defendants: In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit: Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also: [Provided further than 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 defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim.] Explanation.—Where there has been an appeal against a decree passed ex parte under this rule, and the appeal has been disposed of on any ground other than the ground that the appellant has withdrawn the appeal, no application shall lie under this rule of setting aside the ex parte decree. Thus, in a case where a decree is passed ex parte against the defendant, he is entitled to apply for setting aside such decree. It is only that the defendant has to satisfy the court that: (i) Summons was not duly served. or (ii) That he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing, when the suit was called on for hearing. Thus, if any of the above is pleaded and established, the court shall make an order setting aside the ex parte decree upon such terms as to costs and proceed afresh with the suit. 11. or (ii) That he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing, when the suit was called on for hearing. Thus, if any of the above is pleaded and established, the court shall make an order setting aside the ex parte decree upon such terms as to costs and proceed afresh with the suit. 11. Thus, the point to be considered in this appeal is whether the defendant has satisfied the court that the summons was not duly served or that any sufficient cause prevented him from appearing before the trial court when the suit was called on for hearing. Originally, it was contended before the trial court that the service of summons under Order V Rule 15 of the Code without a written order from the court is an irregularity. This is not accepted by the trial court. The Full Bench of this Court also held that there is no requirement for any order from the court for such service of summons. 12. However, we notice that Order V Rule 15 of the Code provides as follows: “15. Where service may be on an adult member of the defendant's family.— Where in any suit the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, service may be made on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with him. Explanation: A servant is not a member of his family within the meaning of this rule.” Thus, the Code permits service of summons on an adult member of the defendant’s family, when the defendant is absent from his residence, under specified situations like; (i) There is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time. (ii) He has no agent empowered to accept service of summons on his behalf. Thus it is only when there is no likelihood of the defendant being found at the address within a reasonable time, the question of service on an adult member of the family arises. 13. At this juncture, reference to Order V Rules 16 & 18 of the Code is beneficial. Thus it is only when there is no likelihood of the defendant being found at the address within a reasonable time, the question of service on an adult member of the family arises. 13. At this juncture, reference to Order V Rules 16 & 18 of the Code is beneficial. The said Rules are as under: “16. Person served to sign acknowledgement: Where the serving officer delivers or tenders a copy of the summons to the defendant personally, or to an agent or other person on his behalf, he shall require the signature of the person to whom the copy is so delivered or tendered to an acknowledgement of service endorsed on the original summons.” …… “18. Endorsement of time and manner of service: The serving officer shall, in all cases in which the summons has been served under rule 16, endorse or annex, or cause to be endorsed or annexed, on or to the original summons, a return stating the time when and the manner in which the summons was served, and the name and address of the person (if any) identifying the person served and witnessing the delivery or tender of the summons.” Thus, when service of summons is attempted on an adult member of the defendant’s family, the signature of the person to whom the summons is delivered is to be obtained under Order V Rule 16 of the Code. Thereafter, the serving officer is required to endorse or annex to the original summons, a return stating the time and the manner of service of summons etc. In the case at hand, along with the return of the summons under Order V Rule 18 of the Code referred above, a statement of the process server is also seen attached, wherein the manner in which the process is served with special reference to order V Rule 15 is entered. 14. Before the trial court, with reference to the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code, the process server one Sri. Sankaranarayanan R. was examined. In his cross-examination, the process server has categorically deposed that according to the defendant’s sister, the defendant had gone out and will return only by evening. 14. Before the trial court, with reference to the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code, the process server one Sri. Sankaranarayanan R. was examined. In his cross-examination, the process server has categorically deposed that according to the defendant’s sister, the defendant had gone out and will return only by evening. Thus, it has come out in evidence that the Process Server was specifically informed by the defendant’s sister that the defendant had gone out for the time being and that he is expected back in the evening. Order V Rule 15 of the Code, referred above permits the service of summons on an adult member of the defendant’s family only in a situation where there is no likelihood of the defendant, being found at the residence “within a reasonable time”. Here, even according to the process server, it was only that when he went to the residence of the defendant, the defendant was absent. The defendant’s sister had informed him that the defendant would be returning by evening. If that be so, we are of the opinion that the service of summons on the sister of the defendant was incorrect. The process server ought to have attempted to serve the summons once again at a later date. 15. In Charanjit Sing Mann v. Neelam Mann [ AIR 2006 P&H 201 ], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the expression “reasonable time” shall vary from case to case and that there has to be satisfaction regarding the likelihood of the defendant’s non-availability at his residence within a reasonable time, for resorting to service of summons under order V Rule 15 of the Code. The court explained the position as follows: “(23) Testing the yardstick of "within reasonable time" in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not denied that:- (i) the appellant is a permanent resident of Ambala Cantt. The court explained the position as follows: “(23) Testing the yardstick of "within reasonable time" in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not denied that:- (i) the appellant is a permanent resident of Ambala Cantt. and summons were sent to him on that address only; (ii) the appellant was not found at his residence and his father informed the process server that the appellant had gone abroad after re-marrying; (iii) the appellant's father did not disclose as to how soon the appellant would come back from abroad; and (iv) the appellant's father did not commit that he will definitely inform the appellant regarding filing of the appeal or the interim order passed by the Court though he assured in this regard. In these peculiar facts and circumstances and having regard to the nature of litigation, it can be safely inferred that the summons could not have been served upon the appellant personally within a reasonable time, therefore, service of notice upon the appellant's father, who admittedly received the summons squarely falls within the safeguards of Rule 15 of Order 5 CPC and has to be treated as a valid service upon the appellant.” (Underlining supplied) Thus it was only because it could be safely inferred that the summons could not be served on the defendant within a reasonable time, the service of summons was held to be valid. In the case at hand, the process server admitted that he was informed that the defendant would be returning back on the same day. In that view of the matter, the service of summons on the sister of the defendant was without any justification, clearly against the mandate under Order V Rule 15 of the Code referred above. 16. Similarly, the Full Bench of this Court, while answering the reference referred to above, has held as under: “34. The requirement of Order V, Rule 15 is that, in the affidavit filed in Form No.11 to Appendix B of the Code, the process server has to enter fully and exactly the manner in which process was served, with special reference to Order V, Rule 15 of the Code, and that, on enquiry with the adult member of the defendant's family, who is residing with the defendant, he is satisfied that there is no likelihood of the defendant being found at the residence within a reasonable time. The expression 'reasonable time' shall vary from case to case. The process server shall ascertain the possibility of the presence of the defendant at his residence within a reasonable time, from an adult member of his family, who is residing with him.” (Underlining supplied) Here, it has come out in evidence that the process server has made enquiries with the relative of the defendant about the possibility of the presence of the defendant within a reasonable time and he is informed that the defendant would be returning back on the same day. Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that the service of summons on the appellant-defendant as above was not in tune with the provisions laid down under Order V Rule 15 of the Code. 17. We may also refer to the provisions of Order IX Rule 6 of the Code which deals with the appearance of the parties and the consequence of non-appearance, as under: “6. Procedure when only the plaintiff appears: (1) Where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, then- (a) When summons duly served-If it is proved that the summons was duly served, the court may make an order that the suit be heard ex parte;] (b) When summons not duly served-If it is not proved that the summons was duly served, the court shall direct a second summons to be issued and served on the defendant; (c) When summons served but not in due time-If it is proved that the summons was served on the defendant, but not in sufficient time to enable him to appear and answer on the day fixed in the summons, the court shall postpone the hearing of the suit to a future day to be fixed by the court, and shall direct notice of such day to be given to the defendant.” The above Rule details the procedure when there is a non-appearance by the defendant. The non-appearance, under the Rule, may be on account of three situations. The first one is when the summons has been duly served, the court is entitled to make an order that the suit be heard ex parte. The second one is when the summons is not duly served, it is the duty of the court to direct a second summons to be issued and served on the defendant. The first one is when the summons has been duly served, the court is entitled to make an order that the suit be heard ex parte. The second one is when the summons is not duly served, it is the duty of the court to direct a second summons to be issued and served on the defendant. Here the word used is “shall”. Therefore, the court is under an obligation to issue a second summons when it is proved that the same is not duly served. The third situation is when the summons is served, out of time, the court is to postpone the hearing and direct notice of such a date to be given to the defendant. The case at hand is one where Rule 6(1)(b) to Order IX of the Code would apply. Therefore, insofar as the summons was not properly served under Order IX Rule 6 of the Code, the court was duty-bound to direct a second summons to be issued and served on the defendant. Here, this exercise has not been carried out by the trial court. 18. Here, the contention of the respondents that in any event, the ex parte decree does not deserve to be set aside in view of the 2nd proviso to Order IX Rule 13 of the Code is to be considered. According to the learned counsel, the defendant had knowledge about the pendency of the suit and going by the petitions already presented, it is to be presumed that he had knowledge about the same. But Order IX Rule 13 of the Code referred above provides for setting aside an ex parte decree on specified circumstances, provided that this benefit is not available if the court is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the “date of hearing.” 19. The Apex Court in Sushil Kumar Sabharwal v. Gurpreet Singh [ (2002) 5 SCC 377 ] considered the question where an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code was rejected by the trial court holding that the appellant was aware about the pendency of the suit. In this case, the Apex Court referred to the provisions as amended by 1976 amendment and held as follows: ”11. In this case, the Apex Court referred to the provisions as amended by 1976 amendment and held as follows: ”11. The High Court has overlooked the second proviso to Rule 13 of Order IX CPC, added by the 1976 Amendment which provides 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 defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim. It is the knowledge of the "date of hearing" and not the knowledge of "pendency of suit" which is relevant for the purpose of the proviso above said. Then the present one is not a case of mere irregularity in service of summons; on the facts it is a case of non-service of summons. The appellant has appeared in the witness box and we have carefully perused his statement. There is no cross-examination directed towards discrediting the testimony on oath of the appellant, that is, to draw an inference that the appellant had in any manner a notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim which he did not avail and utilize. 12. The provision contained in Order IX Rule 6 CPC is pertinent. It contemplates three situations when on a date fixed for hearing the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear and three courses to be followed by the court depending on the given situation. The three situations are: (i) when summons duly served, (ii) when summons not duly served, and (iii) when summons served but not in due time. In the first situation, which is relevant here, when it is proved that the summons was duly served, the court may make an order that the suit be heard ex parte. The provision casts an obligation on the court and simultaneously invokes a call to the conscience of the court to feel satisfied in the sense of being "proved" that the summons was duly served when and when alone, the court is conferred with a discretion to make an order that the suit be heard ex parte. The provision casts an obligation on the court and simultaneously invokes a call to the conscience of the court to feel satisfied in the sense of being "proved" that the summons was duly served when and when alone, the court is conferred with a discretion to make an order that the suit be heard ex parte. The date appointed for hearing in the suit for which the defendant is summoned to appear is a significant date of hearing requiring a conscious application of mind on the part of the court to satisfy itself on the service of summons. Any default or casual approach on the part of the court may result in depriving a person of his valuable right to participate in the hearing and may result in a defendant suffering an ex parte decree or proceedings in the suit wherein he was deprived of hearing for no fault of his. If only the trial court would have been conscious of its obligation cast on it by Order 9 Rule 6 CPC, the case would not have proceeded ex parte against the defendant-appellant and a wasteful period of over eight years would not have been added to the life of this litigation.” 20. In the present case also, the trial court has not come to the finding that the defendant had knowledge about the “date of the hearing”. The plaintiff has also only pointed out that the defendant had knowledge about the suit, assuming it is so. However, under the Code, the trial court was bound to notice that when the summons was not duly served, there was an obligation to direct a second summons to be issued and served upon the defendant. Admittedly, this has not been done. The process server, in his cross-examination, admitted that he served the summons on the sister even after he was informed that the defendant was expected by evening. The Apex Court in Auto Cars v. Trimurti Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. [ (2018) 15 SCC 166 ] has again laid down the purpose behind sending the summons as to intimate the defendant about day, date, year, time etc. when the suit is tried so that he can appear and defend the suit. Here, on account of the incorrect method of service of summons, the defendant is deprived of the above opportunity. when the suit is tried so that he can appear and defend the suit. Here, on account of the incorrect method of service of summons, the defendant is deprived of the above opportunity. Therefore, the very action of the trial court in declaring the appellant-defendant ex parte was incorrect. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appellant-defendant is entitled to succeed in this appeal. The order dated 31.10.2018 in I.A.No.3909 of 2015 of the IInd Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, is set aside. The application filed by the defendant under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code is hereby allowed. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 months, taking note of the fact that the suit is one filed in 2012. Upon the above judgment being pronounced, the learned counsel for the respondents points out that the appellant herein may be interdicted from disposing of the plaint scheduled properties till final disposal of the suit as above as otherwise his client would be put to irreparable damages. We have heard the learned counsel on the above aspect. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances, we order that the appellant-defendant in O.S.No.295 of 2012 shall not transfer, alienate, encumber or commit any waste with respect to the plaint scheduled properties till the final disposal of O.S.No.295 of 2012 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam.