Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner -plaintiff under Sec. 115 of C.P.C. challenging the order dt. 21.12.2009 passed by the Civil Judge, (JD), Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Civil Misc. Case No. 130/08, whereby the trial Court has allowed the application of the respondent -defendant filed under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex -parte decree dt. 15.12.2007 passed in the Civil Suit No. 296/07. In the instant case it appears that the petitioner -plaintiff had filed the suit seeking declaration to the effect that the adoption of the respondent by Shri Kishan Lal vide the adoption deed dt. 09.06.2004 was null and void. The said suit was decreed ex -parte vide the decree dt. 15.12.2007. The respondent having come to know about the said decree had filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside the said ex -parte decree on the ground that he was not properly served with the summons. The trial Court allowed the said application of the respondent and set aside the ex -parte decree, vide the impugned order dt. 21.12.2009. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. J.P. Goyal for the petitioner that though the respondent was duly served with the summons in the suit, he did not appear and therefore the decree was passed against him ex -parte. According to him the trial Court has committed an error by setting aside the said decree on the ground that the respondent was not duly served. In the instant case it appears that the trial Court has set aside the ex -parte decree passed in the suit against the respondent on the ground that the provisions contained in Order V Rule 17 of C.P.C. was not duly complied with while serving the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out as to how the respondent was duly served as per the provisions contained in Order V Rule 17 of C.P.C. Even otherwise, the impugned order having been passed in December, 2009 and there being no stay of the operation of the said order granted by this Court, the trial Court has already proceeded further with the recording of evidence and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in interfering with the impugned order. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.;