The provision of Order 5, Rule 19-A, C.P.C. is mandatory and requires the court to make a declaration that the summons had been duly served, when the postal article containing the summons is received back by the court with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the defendant had refused to take delivery of the same. However, substantial compliance of the rule is sufficient and the declaration of due service can be inferred from the order passed by the court.

M. C. JAIN, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order of the District Judge, Udaipur, dated 12-9-78 whereby the order of the Civil Judge, Udaipur, dated 10-1-78 was upheld and the defendant-petitioners application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the present revision petition may briefly be stated as under: the plaintiffs Arjundas and Smt. Sun deri Bai instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the tenantdefendant Prakash chandra on 4-11-76 on the grounds of personal necessity, sub-letting and default. After registration of the case, summons was ordered to be issued for 10-1-77. On 10-1-77 fresh summons was ordered to be issued for 21-2-77, as the earlier summonses did not return. Summons was issued at the Kankarauli address of the defendant through court. On 21-2-77 summons returned unserved with the endorsement that the defendant was not available at his given address and is at Udaipur. The plaintiffs submitted an application the summons may be issued through registered post, whereupon the court ordered issue of summons through registered post as well as through court for 12-4-77. On 12-4-77, it appears, the summons sent through court did not return and it returned after the date but the summons sent through registered post returned back with an endorsement of refusal on it. The learned Civil Judge thereupon ordered to proceed ex parte under Order 9, Rule 6, C. P. C. and 29-477 was fixed for ex parte evidence. The ex parte order was passed in the following terms:- -. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . in english on 29-4-77 after recording ex parte evidence, the plaintiffs suit was decreed.

( 3 ) ON 2nd of May, 1977, the defendant submitted an application under Order 9, rule 13, C. P. C. , for setting aside the ex parte decree alleging that he came to know of the decree on 30th April, 1977. It was alleged that he did not receive any summons of the suit. Neither he was personally served for 12-4-77 nor he received any summons through registered post. It was also stated that no postman offered him any registered letter nor he refused any registered letter. He cannot say as to how the postman has written the endorsement of refusal on the registered letter. The defendant filed his own affidavit in support of the application.

( 4 ) THE plaintiffs submitted their reply to the application in which it was denied that the registered letter was not offered to the defendant and that a wrong endorsement was made by the postman. The postman has discharged his duty in the ordinary course of his business and so there is no reason to disbelieve the endorsement made by him. The registered letter was tendered to the defendant and he refused to accept it. It was also stated that the defendant deliberately did not appear on 12-4-77 and it is wrong that he had no notice of it. Plaintiff Arjundas filed his own affidavit in support of his reply.

( 5 ) THE parties led evidence. The defendant Prakash Chandra examined himself as A. W. 1. On behalf of the plaintiffs Arjundas plaintiff appeared as N. A. W. 1 and produced Bhavdutt (N. A. W, 2) and Fatehlal postman (N. A. W. 3 ). The learned Civil Judge, after hearing the arguments, dismissed the defendants application and he found that the registered letter was offered to the defendant and he refused to accept the same and as such the summons was duly served on him. It was also observed that there were no other grounds for setting aside the ex parte decree. It was not alleged by the defendant that he was prevented by any other sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. The only ground taken was that the summons was not duly served on him, which was found against him. The defendant went in appeal against the order of the learned Civil Judge, but the order of the learned Civil Judge was upheld by the learned District Judge and it was held that the service of summons was effected in accordance w