In response to the mat suit that was decreed ex-parte, order 9 rule 13 Application was filed by respondent/wife. The application was allowed on erroneous ground that service was not undertaken by court process server. During revision of the order in HC, the order was not set aside. However, during review of the said HC order, the review order acknowledged that the service of summon was undertaken in ‘more than one way’ but prayer of petitioner was denied because as the Ld. Court observed ‘there was a change in 'set of Lawyers' during review; which again was inaccurate.
