The petitioner is the defendant in a suit O.S.No. 136 of 1952 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Tiruvaiyaru. The decree was passed against him ex parte on 31st July, 1952. On 29th September, 1952, he filed an application under Order 9, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him. He alleged that he came to know of the decree only on 20th September, 1952.

The ground on which he based his application to have the ex parte decree against him set aside was that summons was not duly served on him. The material facts, as to which there is practically no dispute, are that the summons was sent to him by registered post and was returned with the endorsement of the postman “refused”. The question is whether there was on these facts sufficient service in law. Postal service of summons was introduced by sub-rule (3) of rule 9 of Order 5, which runs as follows: -

“Where the defendant resides in India whether within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted or not, the Court may direct the proper officer to cause summons under this chapter to be addressed to the defendant at the place where he ordinarily resides or ca