G SHANMUKHI Vs. UTAKUR VENKATARAMI REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by my learned brother Bhimasankaram, J. I agree with him. Bhimasankaram, J.-This Civil Revision Petition has been directed to be posted before a Full Bench by our learned brother Chandra Reddy, J. The question for determination in the case is whether substituted service effected as provided by Order 5, rule 20, Civil Procedure Code, is due service within the meaning of Order g, rule 13, of the same Code.

(2.) The facts of the case are these: The petitioner obtained a decree against both the respondents who are father and son. The father was not presonally served with the notice of suit and substituted service was ordered against him. As he did not eventually appear in the suit, there was an ex parte decree passed against him. He applied to the lower Court for setting aside the decree on the ground that he had no knowledge of the suit. Without recording a definite finding as to whether he had or had not knowledge of the proceedings, the learned District Munsif before whom the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree came up for hearing, stated that as the service was only substituted service, he could not have been aware of the suit and set aside the ex parte decree. The plaintiff-decree-holder has come up in: revision against the said order.

(3.) Now, Order 9, rule 13, so far as it is material for the present purposes, is as follows: