ORDER :

1. This Revision is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), challenging the order dt. 25.06.2015 in C.M.A.No.14 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, confirming the order dt. 08.07.2013 in I.A.No.595 of 2011 in O.S.No.22 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli.

2. Petitioner herein is defendant in O.S.No.22 of 2000 filed by the respondents against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,26,349-50 ps.

3. Petitioner was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner on 07.11.2002 by the Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli.

4. Thereafter, E.P.No.22 of 2011 was filed by the respondents against the petitioner. Notice in the said E.P. was served on the petitioner on 27.08.2011 at 8.30 am.

5. Petitioner then filed I.A.No.595 of 2011 in O.S.No.22 of 2000 before the Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli invoking Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dt. 07.11.2002 passed in O.S.No.22 of 2000.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, petitioner stated that he joined in the first respondent-organization and was later promoted as Head-Master in 1980. He stated that during his service with the first respondent, he was residing in a quarter allotted to him in Godavarikhani.

7. He alleged that he had no knowledge about filing of the suit by the respondents against him and he did not receive any summons from the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli. He alleged that only to harass him, the suit appears to have been filed and an ex parte decree was obtained without serving summons on him. He also alleged that the respondents played fraud on him and obtained ex parte decree by taking out publication of summons in newspaper which had no circulation in Godavarikhani widely.

8. Counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent opposing the application and alleging that the petitioner, when he was employed in the first respondent-organization, had misappropriated grant-in-aid amount pertaining to a school to the tune of Rs.2,26,347-50 ps and committed other irregularities. It alleged that a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and after conducting enquiry, petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 30.05.1998. It is alleged that the petitioner participated in the enquiry, and thereafter, the first respondent issued a notice to him advising him to remit the amount misappropriated through its advocate to the residential address of the petitioner at Godavarikhani, and the petitioner received it, but did not pay it.

9. It is alleged that the suit summons issued to the petitioner sent to Godavarikhani residence of the petitioner were returned unserved with endorsement “no addressee is available at the said address”; that the Headmaster of the school informed the petitioner’s address as “Brilliant Real Estates, Abids, Hyderabad”, and summons were sent to that address also. It is alleged that, that such summons were also returned unserved, and so summons were published on 13.10.2002 in the “Eenadu” daily Newspaper Hyderabad edition as per the direction of the Court informing the petitioner to appear before the Court on 21.10.2002.

10. It is alleged that the petitioner did not give his address at the last residence or to the local post-office and so the respondents had no option to publish the summons in the daily Newspaper. It is contended that the petitioner did not attend the Court on 21.10.2002; so he was set ex parte and the suit was posted to 07.11.2002 for the respondents’ evidence; and after examining P.W.1 on the said date, suit was decreed.

11. It is alleged that the respondents, after thorough enquiry, located the whereabouts of the petitioner after nine years of the date of decree and got transferred the decree to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, for execution. It is also contended that the respondents had filed a criminal complaint on 25.11.1997 before the Station House Officer, I Town Polic