Honble SEMA, J.–Leave granted.

(2). The sole question that falls for consideration in this appeal is, whether the service of notice sent by registered post with acknowledgment card in terms of Order 5 second proviso to Rule 19A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 can be accepted as a sufficient notice.

(3). This appeal filed by the defendants (judgment debtors) arises out of the following material facts. Suit No.473 of 1985 filed by the landlord ended in passing of an ex-parte decree by the Trial Court on 30.5.1986. The appellants preferred an application on 6.10.1986 under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the ex-parte decree which was rejected by the trial Court. Their appeal before the appellate Court and revision petition before the High Court ended without, any success. It appears, initially the plaintiff (respondent herein) could not deposit the requisite process fee for which the summons could not be issued to the appellants-defendants. On 2.4.1986, the trial Court ordered the summons to be issued to the defendants, both by ordinary process and by registered post. and the case was adjourned to 30.4.1986. On a perusal of the record. and not disputed by the parties, we find that the registered notices were issued to the defendants vide postal receipt Nos. 875 and 876 dated 24.4.1986. As on 30.4.1986, summons issued by registered posts were not received back, the case was adjourned to 30.6.1986 awaiting the receipt of the service report. On 30.6.1986, the trial Court again ordered that fresh summons both by ordinary post and registered post be issued within three days. The trial Court also ordered substituted service by resorting to Order 5 Rule 20 C.P.C. by publication of summons in local daily ``Dainik Bhaskar. On 5.8.1986, it appears that a notice of publication in daily newspaper ``Aacharan instead of ``Dainik Bhaskar as ordered by the Court has been produced. This is one of the grievances of the appellants, which we shall be dealing at appropriate place. On 22.8.1986, the trial Court passed an order to proceed ex-parte and fixed the case for 4.9.1986 for evidence of the plaintiff. As the date fixed - 4.9.1986 was declared a public holiday, the plaintiffs witness was examined on 5.9.1986 and the ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 30.9.1986. It is stated that the appellants came to know of the exparte decree on 1. 10. 1986 and filed an application on 6.10.1986 for setting aside the ex- parte decree, as noticed above.

(4). Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Trial Court has acted in violation of the procedure prescribed under Order 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in issuing summons to the defendants. He further contended that the substituted service can be resorted to only when the court is satisfied that the defendant is avoiding the service or the service cannot be effected in an ordinary way. The trial Court having not passed any order about the satisfaction as envisaged under the Code, it was not open to the Trial Court to order for substituted service. This submission need not detain us any longer. On the facts of the case the courts satisfaction is implicit in the order directing service by publication.

(5). Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure insists that the applicant must satisfy the court two conditions (a) that the summons was not duly served and (b) that the applicant was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing before the court when the suit called on for hearing. In the present case second condition is not attracted.

(6). Regarding the contention of the counsel for the appellants that the summons were not duly served, as the substituted service has been published in the local daily ``Aacharan instead of ``Dainik Bhaskar, we may point out that it is in the evidence on record that both ``Aacharan and ``Dainik Bhaskar are the local dailies and are widely circulated in the area. In ordinary circumstances, if both the local d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document