1. The civil revision petition arises out of an application by the petitioner (the defendant) for setting aside an ex parte decree under O.IX. R.13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both the lower courts have dismissed the application.

2. The first complaint of the counsel of the petitioner is that the lower courts erred in holding that there was due service of summons. The first ground is that the petitioner's name is N. Hariharan, whereas it was shown in the summons sent by registered post as H. Hariharan; and his address was given as Pankajam Motors Ltd., Alwaye instead of the correct address, Pankajam Talkies. Alwaye. The summons was returned with the endorsement by the postman that there was no such institution as Pankajam Motors Ltd. in Alwaye and that there was no such person as H. Hariharan. Thereafter, the summons was published in the 'Express', a Malayam daily, having circulation in the locality, after which the ex parte decree was passed. The petitioner is examined as pw.1; and he says that if letters were addressed to him as N. Hariharan, Pankajam Motors Ltd., they should reach him. This shows that there was nothing wrong in the address, which again is fortifie