1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 12.03.1997 passed by the learned trial court allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. in Civil Misc. Case No. 230/1993.

2. The brief facts may be summarised as follows : The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on or about 08.01.1973 against one Goruram, the defendant since deceased, and now represented by the non-petitioners No. 1 to 6. After the filing of the suit, the summons were issued to the defendant Goruram on various occasions for his appearance before the court on 13.01.1973, 30.04.1973, 09.10.1973, 30.01.1974, 12.06.1974 and 17.07.1974 but the defendant could not be served for various reasons as he was not found on the address though his .son and wife who were present refused to accept the summons and on the summons being affixed on the house no person was willing to sign as a witness. Ultimately, the plaintiff moved an application for substituted service by publication and in pursuance thereof the summons were published in the Hindi Daily Dainik Navjyoti, being published from Jaipur for appearance before the trial court in the suit on 05.02.1975.

3. After the publication of the summons in the newspaper date 18.01.1975 for appearance of the defendant before the court on 05.02.1975, the defendant failed to appear before the trial court on the date fixed and as such an order was passed for proceeding ex-parte against the defendant.

4. Immediately, thereafter, the defendant appeared and moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 05.02.1975 which application was allowed and the defendant filed his written statement and the issues were framed and the case was fixed for evidence. The suit proceeded for sometime but on 21.11.1979 the suit came to be dismissed in default on account of non-appearance on the part of the plaintiff.

5. An application was, therefore, filed on 21.02.1979 for restoration of the suit. So far as the restoration application is concerned, efforts were made to serve the defendant on various occasions and neither the defendant could .be served personally nor his counsel Shri Hanuman Prasad, Advocate accepted the summons. The summons were sent to the defendant by registered post which were returned with the endorsement of refusal (Exhibit-A/3) and consequently, on 27.08.1981 the court considered the service as sufficient and after hearing the plaintiff restored the suit vide order dated 08.12.1981.

6. After restoration of the suit, the notices were again issued to the defendant of the suit. It appears that the said summons which were ordered to be issued were not issued for some reason and the court ordered for service of the summons by registered post on 16.08.1982. The date fixed was 17.09.1982. On the said date, the A/D Receipt did not return and the notices were ordered to be awaited for 25.09.1982. On 25.09.1982 the registered notices returned without being served.

7. The plaintiff realising that the defendant was evading notices looking to the past nature right from the year 1973 and the fact that even previously all efforts to serve the defendant in the suit failed and the members of his family refused tot accept the notices and the notices which were fixed on the address as there was no witness available to testify the affixation and the fact that the defendant was deliberately avoiding the service and, therefore, in the suit also the defendant was served by substituted service by publication of the notice in the Dainik Navjyoti newspaper on 18.01.1975 again applied to 1 the court on 12.10.1982 for being permitted to serve the defendant by substituted service by publication of the notices in the Hindi Daily Newspaper Rashtra Doot being published from Jaipur where the defendant last resided.

8. The application dated 12.10.1982 under Order 5 Rule 20 C.P.C. was allowed and the plaintiff-petitioner was permitted to serve the defendant Goruram by substituted service by publication of the no