appellant or on someone else. There is nothing on record to show that the process server deputed from the court below had served the summons on 17.03.2016, on the appellant. The summons is dated 04.03.20116. As stated earlier, the hearing date fixed therein is 28.03.2016. If as a matter of fact, summons was served on the appellant on his own behalf and on behalf of the first defendant firm, nothing stood in the way of the process server from obtaining his signature, after following the procedure prescribed in Rules 75 and 80(2) of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice. It is ignoring the aforesaid stipulations in the Rules and without properly noticing the facts stated above that the lower appellate court held in its judgment as also in the impugned order that summons was served on the appellant on 17.03.2016. In such circumstances, nothing turns on the statement in the impugned order that the appellant was set ex-parte on 24.05.2016 and it was thereafter that an ex-parte judgment was delivered on 20.12.2016. From the materials on record and the attendant circumstances, we are satisfied that there was no proper service of notice on the appellant. Necessarily, therefore, it has to be held that the first defendant has also not been served, for the reason that it was not shown in the summons that the first defendant firm is represented by the appellant herein, the second defendant in the suit. The impugned order cannot therefore in our opinion be sustained.
