delivered the opinion of tihe court:
Plaintiffs appeal from the order of April 30, 1971, vacаting judgments in then favor entered on December 17, 1970, and setting the case for trial. They contend that defendant’s motion to vacate the judgments did not comply with Sеction 72 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 110, par. 72), and that therefore the vacatur was void.
Defеndant urges that since plaintiffs did not file any objections or answer to the motion and have failed to file a report of proceedings, they cannоt now attack the sufficiency of the motion or thе ruling of the court.
Defendant’s pro se motion to vacate stated:
“Due to insufficient service [I was never serviced by anyone directly] notice of any action was obtained from Cook County Credit Bu. — to vaсate the judgment, * * *."
Plaintiffs argue that since the motion was presented more than 30 days after the entry of the judgments, it must be supported by affidavit as provided in sub-seсtion 2 of Section 72, supra. However, aU motions to vacate judgments after 30 days are not necessarily subject to the restrictions of Section 72 sincе subparagraph 7 thereof makes reference to the general principles of law in regаrd to void orders in stating:
“Nothing contained in this section affects any existing right to relief from a void order, judgment оr decree, or to employ any existing method to procure that relief.”
Defendant’s petition requested a vacatur of the judgments on the ground that hе had not been served with process thereby questiоning the jurisdiction of the court to enter any judgment agаinst him. The deputy sheriff’s return of process states that he served defendant by delivering a copy of the writ tо “Mr. Richardson, a person of his family.” In Abron v. Public Pontiaс, Inc.,
“Without service or appearancе the court had no jurisdiction to enter a judgment against defendant, and the invalidity of such a judgment may be raisеd at any time by either direct or collateral attack.”
We therefore find that defendant’s motion in the instant case was an attack on an allegedly void order and need not have concernеd itself with Section 72 of the Civil Practice Act. Thus the ordеr vacating the judgments, ordering defendant to file an аppearance and answer within 15 days and setting the cause for trial was not a final order and was not appealable. In E.M.S. Co. v. Brandt,
“An order vacating a prior judgment, under the circumstances of this cаse, [not a Section 72 proceeding] simply leаves the case pending. It is "an order which is not final in its-character.’, * ?
While this contention was not made on defendants’ motion, when we are without jurisdiction to determine an appeal, it is our duty to dismiss it, however the matter may have come to our attention. [Citing cases.]”
Plaintiffs’ appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
LORENZ, P. J., and ENGLISH, J., concur.