This appeal has to be allowed and ex parte decree set aside. What happened was that the third defendant, who is the appellant before us was said to have been served by substituted service and the learned Judge, therefore, held that that was sufficient service of notice on him. Thereafter the suit was decreed ex parte. An application by the third defendant to set aside the decree was dismissed by the successor of the learned Judge following the decisions of this Court in Shariba Beebi v. Abdul Salam1, to the effect that if substituted service is effected under rule 20, Order 5, such service is effectual as if it has been made on the defendant personally and therefore such service must be deemed to be effective service within the meaning of the expression in Article 164 of the Limitation Act. In that case the learned Judge referred to earlier decisions in Doraiswami Ayyar v. Balasundaram Aiyar2and Narasimha Chettiar v. Balakrishna Chetty3. But the trend of decisions subsequent to this is exemplified in Gyanammal v. Abdul Hussain Sahib4and Muhaidin Kader Meera Sahib v. Lakshmanan Chettiar5, which are to the contrary effect. In the earlier case, Reilly and Anantakrish