JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

st

2. The plaintiff/1 respondent, by name, Sri N.P. Balaraja Naidu (the th st deceased) filed O.S.No.89 of 2015 against the present 4 respondent/1 defendant, by name, Sri M. Jyotheswara Naidu, for specific performance of contract, on the file of the V Additional District Judge’s Court, Tirupati. The suit st was filed on 08.04.2015. The 1 defendant, pending the suit, executed sale nd nd deed on 27.05.2015 in favour of the present 2 respondent. The 2 defendant rd executed sale deed in favour of the present 3 respondent on 05.06.2015. The st

1 defendant filed written statement on 03.08.2015. Later on, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.461 of 2016 to implead defendants Nos.2 and 3 as parties in the suit, which was allowed. The suit is pending.

3. In the suit, by order, dated 31.01.2020, the Court passed the order to rd rd proceed ex parte against the petitioner/3 defendant. The petitioner/3 defendant Smt. D. Dhanalakshmi filed I.A.No.235 of 2023 under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC to set aside the order dated 31.01.2020, along with the written statement with permission to receive the same. I.A.No.235 of 2023 was filed on 09.03.2023, after more than 3 years of the order, dated

31.01.2020.

4. The V Additional District Judge, Tirupati has dismissed the application I.A.No.235 of 2023 by order dated 10.07.2023. Challenging the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the paper publication for service was ordered which was published in ‘Prajasakhti’ daily newspaper on 31.01.2020, but the said publication was not noticed by the petitioner, and consequently, the petitioner could not appear in the suit and was set ex parate.

6. He further submits that there is no bar in taking on record the written statement in civil suit, even beyond the period of 90 days. Consequently, rejection of I.A.No.235 of 2023 is not justified. He has placed reliance in the

1 cases of Nanda Dulal Pradhan v. Dibakar Pradhan, Atcom

2 Technologies Ltd. v. Y. A. Chunawala & Co. and K. Munirathnam Vs.

3 Jakkadanam Radha and Ors. .

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

8. From the events / narration of facts, as above, it is evident that after st institution of the suit by the plaintiff, the 1 defendant transferred the suit nd nd property on 27.05.2015 to the 2 defendant and the 2 defendant transferred rd the same to the 3 defendant on 05.06.2015. Those transactions have taken st place during pendency of the suit. The 1 defendant is contesting the suit by filing the written statement.

1 2022 (5) ALT 1

2 (2018) 6 SCC 639

3 CRP.No.1262 of 2023, APHC, decided on 8.5.2023

rd

9. The petitioner/3 defendant did not put her appearance, in spite of rd publication of notice in the newspaper. The ground, as argued, is that the 3 defendant did not notice such service through publication. The ground taken in I.A.No.235 of 2023 for setting aside the order to proceed ex parte dated

31.01.2020, was that defendant No.3 had not seen the publication.

10. The aforesaid is not a ground to hold that there was no service.

Publication in newspaper under the order of the Court’s order is sufficient service on the concerned person, is well settled in law.

4

11. In Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India the appellants therein, upon whom the service was considered as sufficient on publication in the Hindi newspaper, namely Nav Bharat Times, and it was argued on their behalf that the appellants were not the subscribers of that newspaper and were not reading. It was held that such contention was wholly irrelevant, and it was immaterial whether the appellants were subscribers of the said newspaper and whether they were reading it. Once a summons is published in a newspaper having wide circulation in the locality, it does not lie in the mouth of the person