In view of the finding of the lower appellate Court refusing to rely upon the evidence of D. W. 6, that he affixed the notice to survey number 321 on the outer door of the shop, the lower appellate Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant did not have notice of the survey as contemplated in section 9(ii) of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act. The question then arises as to whether such a survey without notice to the party concerned, when it is adverse to him, is binding on him, if he has not brought a suit to set aside the survey within three years as contemplated in section 14 of the Act. The expression in section 13 is "when the survey of any land or boundary which has been notified under section 5 has been completed in accordance with the orders passed under sections 9, 10 or 11 etc., etc." The question is, whether there has been a completion of the survey in accordance with the orders passed under section 9, if no notice of the survey has been given to the party concerned. ‘The learned Judge held that the words "in accordance with the orders" cannot be said to be synonymous with "in accordance with the provisions laid down." I am unable to