R POONGAVANAM Vs. C DHANDAPANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the order, dated 09.10.2006 made in I.A.No.1342 of 2004 in O.S.No.65 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam.

(2.) THE aforesaid Interlocutory Application had been filed by the respondent / defendant before the court below, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 551 days in filing a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the exparte decree.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / defendant contended that notice was ordered to the respondent / defendant, only by substituted service, since notice was not served on him. Though he was permanently residing at Tiruppur, the substituted service by publication was effected only in the Erode edition of Dinamalar, Tamil Daily and not in Tiruppur edition of the Newspaper. As per Order 5 Rule 20 (1A) CPC, where the court acting under sub-rule (1) orders service by an advertisement in a newspaper, the newspaper shall be published in a daily newspaper having circulation in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided, carried on business or personally known.