1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By the impugned order the learned trial Court has dismissed the petitioner's application filed u/O. 9 Rule 13 CPC.

3. The facts of the case are that a suit for recovery of money was filed against the defendants, including the petitioner. As the petitioner was not being served, the learned trial Court ordered the service to be effected by substituted service, by being published in some local newspaper. Then on 19.7.1991, it was recorded that summon had been published in the newspaper 'Janamdata' on 1.5.1991,, copy whereof has been produced on be record on 9.5.1991 That service was taken to be sufficient. Since the other defendants entered appearance, the summons for judgment, were ordered to be issued to the other defendants. However, ultimately, the suit was decreed on 30.9.1994.

4. The petitioner filed the present application on 21.5.1996 alleging inter alia that the petitioner is working as contractor in Public Works Department and an attachment order was received from the Court u/O. 22 Rule 46, whereupon he was given notice on 14.5.1996. Thereupon, the petitioner learnt about the decree. It was also alleged that summon of the