( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner-respondent-plaintiff in I. A-No. 1087 of 1998 in O. S. No. 844 of 1996 on the file of the First Junior Civil judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad against an order dated 29-10-1998 whereunder an application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 31-1-1998 was allowed.

( 2 ) NO evidence was let in by both the parties. The learned First Junior Civil Judge, city Civil Court. Secunderabad had decided the application only on the basis of the affidavit filed in support of the application counter-affidavit and the reply affidavit and the allegations made therein. The learned Judge at Para 21 had observed as follows:"in the light of the above discussion, I hold that the petitioner/defendant satisfied this Court that the summons were not duly served on him and he has no knowledge about the suit proceedings prior to 21-7-1998. Therefore, this Court shall set aside-the ex parte decree dated 31-1-1998 under Or. 9 R. 13 C. P. C. on terms. That apart, this Court further holds that this petition having filed on 24-7-1998, is within limitation from the date of knowledge of suit proceedings. Hence the petition is liable to be allowed with costs. In the result, the petition is allowed with costs by setting aside the ex parte decree dated 31-1-1998 subject to filing of written statement by 19-11-1998.

( 3 ) THE respondent-petitioner-defendant in the suit in his affidavit had stated that on 21-7-1998 the bailiff came to the plaint schedule premises in their absence, broke open the lock and removed all their business belongings, machines worth about five lakh rupees and delivered possession to the revision petitioner-respondent-plaintiff which came to his knowledge only on 21-7-1998 through some one belonging to the neighbouring shop. It was further stated that they contacted Sri N. Raghavan, advocate who had collected information that ex parte decree was passed on 31-1-1998 and it was also specifically stated that it was not within their knowledge since neither the notices nor the summons were ever served on him. It was also further averred that the revision petitioner managed that summons in the suit were not served upon him and so also legal notice was not served upon him. It was also stated that there was some demand for enhancement of rent and further it was averred he had sent rent for 29 months from 20-1-1995 to 20-6-1997 but it was also managed to be returned by the revision petitioner with the endorsement "party absent for seven days". It was also further averred that the rent collectors of the revision petitioner fully know that he has been carrying on manufacturing. business in the suit schedule premises and his son also had opened workshop at kavadiguda and taking advantage of the same they managed to see that neither notices nor the suit summons were served upon him. It was also specifically stated that the revision petitioner had deliberately concealed the residential address and had sent the notice and summons to the suit schedule premises that too during the days when the same might have been closed due to his nature of business. The respondent in his affidavit also had explained the reasons why the suit schedule premises will be under closure often. It was further stated that the revision petitioner taking advantage of the same in a preplanned manner had instituted the suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits and got managed the summons to be as if affixed on the door but in fact they were never affixed. It was also further averred that the suit was dismissed and again it was restored arid an ex parte decree was passed and he had gathered all this information through his Counsel on 23-7-1998. It was also further averred that he was advised that under the law of limitation the limitation begins to run from the date of the actual knowledge and he got actual knowledge about the suit only when the Court bailiff came to