1. This appeal is directed against an order passed on an application under Or. 9, R. 13, Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") by the court below.

2. A money suit was filed by the respondent against the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta and the General Manager, North Frontier Railway, Maligaon, Calcutta. The said suit was dismissed for default for non-payment of court-fee but was later on restored. It was admitted on 15-4-77 and ex parte decree was passed on 20-7-77. The appellant thereupon filed an application for setting aside the said decree mainly on the ground that notices had not been served upon them. Thereafter a miscellaneous case was registered and the same was dismissed by the court below on 5-4-78.

3. Mr. A.B. Ojha, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted before us that the procedure laid down under Order 5, Rule 19-A of the Code was not followed in the present case and on that ground alone the ex parte decree should have been set aside by the Court below. Mr. Ojha has drawn our attention to Order No. 13 date 15 (14)-4-77 and order No. 14 dated 2-5-77 of the trial court in miscellaneous case. They read as under:-

From the order dated 15-4-77 it will appear that the suit was admitted on that date. The plaintiff filed the summons along with registered envelop and the court fixed 2-5-77 as the next date. It was directed that the summons be sent by registered post. On 2-5-77 the learned court below states that the summons by registered post were served. The case was adjourned to 18-5-77 for fixing a date for ex parte hearing since the defendant had not appeared.

4. It has been submitted before us that the learned court below committed an error of record in stating that the summons by registered post had been served on the defendants. From the record it will appear that the acknowledgment due showing service of notice on North Frontier Railway (defendant No. 2) had been received but the acknowledgement showing service of notice on the Eastern Railway (defendant No. 1) had not been received by that time. The learned court below seems to have proceeded on the assumption that the summons had been served by registered post on both the defendants. The learned court below noted this fact in the impugned order but it seems to have taken shelter of Order 5, Rule 19-A of the Code. Order 5, Rule 19-A of the Code provides that the court shall, in addition to, and simultaneously with, the issue of summons for service in the manner provided in Rules 9 to 19, also direct the summons to be served by registered post, acknowledgement due, addressed to the defendant, or his agent empowered to accept the service at the place where the defendant or his agent actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business ......

5. It may be mentioned here that the learned court below directed for service of summons by registered post even without issuing summons for service in the manner provided in Rules 9 to 19 of Order 5 of the Code. It must be noted that the mode of service by registered post is only in addition to the service of summons in the ordinary course. The Courts are, therefore, required to simultaneously sent notices in the ordinary course and by registered post. In the circumstances of the case we find that the learned court below did not take any step for issue of summons in the ordinary course, i.e. in the manner provided in Rules 9 to 19 of Order 5 of the Code. The procedure thus adopted by the court below in issuing summons by registered post in absence of the summons in ordinary course was wrongly adopted. Besides this, the proviso to Order 5, Rule 19-A (2) provides that the declaration referred to in this sub-rule shall be made notwithstanding the fact that acknowledgement having been lost or mislaid or for any other reason, has not been received by the Court within thirty days from the date of the issue of the summons.

6. In a previous decision by us reported