The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.464 of 2002 in the Court of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the appellant and respondents 2 and 3, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. On the ground that the premises, where the appellant was residing and to which the summons were addressed, were found locked, on two occasions, the 1st respondent sought permission of the Court to effect substituted service of summons. On permission having been accorded, substituted service was taken out. Thereafter, the appellant was set ex parte.

That was followed by an ex parte decree, dated 18.09.2003. At the stage of execution of the decree, the appellant came to know about it. Soon thereafter, he filed I.A.No.58 of 2005 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. The I.A., was dismissed, initially on 18.05.2005. The appellant filed C.M.A.No.507 of 2005, before this Court. Through order, dated 27.02.2007, this Court allowed the C.M.A., and remanded the matter to the trial Court. The I.A. was dismissed, after remand, on 12.03.2008. Hence, this C.M.A. Sri P.Shiv Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there was absol