Reilly, J.

1. The appellant in this case obtained a preliminary decree for sale on a mortgage, defendant 1 in the suit being the mortgagor and defendant 2 a purchaser of the equity of redemption. Defendant 2 appealed to the District Judge of Chingleput. That appeal was heard ex par be without any appearance having been put in for the plaintiff, and the decree obtained by the plaintiff in the original Court was set aside. Subsequently the plaintiff made an application to the District Judge under Rule 21 of Order 41 of the Code praying that the ex parte decree against her made in the appeal might be set aside. Before the appeal was heard several attempts were made to serve the plaintiff, and, as they were unsuccessful, eventually an order was made for substituted service on her. That substituted service appears to have been held sufficient, as the learned District Judge disposed of the appeal against the mortgage decree. But, when the plaintiff came forward with her application under Rule 21 of Order 41, she alleged that she had never heard anything about the appeal and wished to give evidence to establish that. The learned District Judge, however, finding that the formalities