1. The appellant, in this case, applied to have an ex parte decree against him set aside. His application was put in more: than a year after the date of the decree. Several ineffective attempts had been made to serve him with summons and ultimately substituted service was ordered and effected. He did not appear and a decree was passed against him ex parte. The Subordinate Judge dismissed his application as time-barred under Article 164 of the Limitation Act. We have been asked in appeal to refer the question at issue, that is to say whether substituted service is due service, to a Full Bench, on the ground of a supposed difference of opinion between two Benches of this Court. The decision of one is to be found in Shariba Beebi v. Abdul Salam I.L.R. (1927) 51 M. 860 : 55 M.L.J. 565, the other in Gyanammal v. Abdul Hussain Sahib AIR1931Mad813 . In the first case an ex parte. decree passed after substituted service on the defendant was set aside. In revision the High Court reversed the order of the Lower Court and remanded the matter for a decision on the allegation by the respondent that substituted service had not been properly effected. In the second case, the appellant had