Shanmukham, J.

1. The defendant in O.S. No. 76 of 1983 on the file of the Sub Court, Nilgiris, is aggrieved against the Order of dismissal of his application, I.A. No. 110 of 1984 filed under Order 9, Rule 13,0f the Code of Civil Procedure.

2.Mr.Palpandian, Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case, there is no service on the appellant herein within the meaning of Order 5, Rule 19A and therefore, the Court shall make an Order setting aside the decree as against him. The Learned Counsel would emphasize on the word 'shall' employed in Order 9, Rule 13. The Court below held that ,as under Ex. B1, Ex. R4 notice was acknowledged by the appellant's wife and as the appellant did not examine his wife, there was valid service within the meaning of Order 5, Rule 15.

3. The question that falls for determination therefore is whether on the facts in this case Order 5, Rule 15 or Order 5, Rule 19A is attracted. It may be useful to refer to certain dates at this juncture. The defendant was set ex-parte as early as 8th April, 1983 and ex parte decree came to be passed on 30th August, 1983. Order 5, Rule 15 provides:

Where in any suit the defendant is absent from his residen