JUDGMENT :- This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by plaintiff-respondent for cancellation of a decree passed by the Revenue Court on the ground that the said decree was obtained by the defendant-appellant under fraud which prevented the plaintiff-respondent from coming to know of that decree. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but decreed by the lower appellate court. Hence this second appeal.

2. The relevant facts were that the appellant filed a suit under Section 59 of the U. P. Tenancy Act in the Revenue Court against the appellant for a declaration that he had acquired hereditary tenancy rights in a plot under Section 180 (2) of the said Act. Summons of that suit was issued to the respondent but the same could not be served on him personally. The appellant then applied that substituted service may be effected on him under Order V, Rule 20, Civil Procedure Code. The Revenue Court allowed that application and directed that service shall be effected by beat of drum in the locality in which the respondent resided and also by affixation of the summons at some conspicuous place in the Court. It was done accordingly. Even after that the respondent did not put i