N MUTHAIAH Vs. K LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are some of the defendants in O.S. No. 165/88 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirupathi. They have filed I.A. No. 523/89 to set aside the ex-pane decree dated 6-10-1988 passed against them. As the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed that petition, they preferred this Revision.

(2.) From the Order of the Lower Court, it can be seen that summons were ordered to the defendants only through Court. The Order also reads that the defendants refused the summons when tendered by the Process Server and therefore, there was affixture and the learned Subordinate Judge was satisfied with the service of the summons by affixture and set the defendants ex-parte as they were called absent and after recording the evidence of the plaintiff, passed an ex-parte decree.

(3.) In this revision, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was no proper service as contemplated under Order V.C.P.C. He has pointed out that under Rule 19-A it is obligatory on the part of the Court to order service of summons both through Court and by registered post unless, the Court dispenses with service by registered post where it considers it unnecessary. The learned counsel has pointed out that in this case, the Order of the Lower Court shows that service by registered post was dispensed with on the ground that it will cause some more expenditure to the plaintiff, which is not at all proper ground for dispensing with the service of summons through registered post.