JUDGMENT Rankin, C.J. - This is an appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Panckridge, sitting on the Original Side, who has declined to set aside an ex parte decree made in a suit on the 22nd of January, 1931. The suit was brought by one Joy Gopal Mukherjee--one of the sons of Hari Narayan Mukherjee, deceased. The Defendant's case is that the father Hari Narayan had deposited a sum of Rs. 4,400 with the Defendant shortly before his death and that, after his death, the Defendant was willing to return the money to whomsoever was entitled to it, but that the Plaintiff Joy Gopal set up a story--which the Defendant says was a false story--that he himself (Joy Gopal) had deposited this money with the Defendant. It appears that the father Hari Narayan left a Will and that his widow is the executrix of his Will. Before the suit was brought, the Plaintiff's Attorney obtained from the executrix a letter written by her pleader disclaiming all interest to the sum of Rs. 4,400 and the executrix pledges her own personal knowledge that the money was given to the Defendant by her son Joy Gopal and not by her late husband. 2. A good deal of ill-feeling appears to have arisen between the parties over this matter and it is true that, as long ago as the 29th of April, 1928, Brojo Gopal--the son of Hari Narayan by another wife--claimed that the money belonged to the father's estate. However, the Plaintiff brought his suit on the 3rd of December, 1930. The case was heard undefended on the 22nd of January, 1931. 3. The Defendant brought his application to have the ex parte decree set aside and that application must be dealt with upon the principle which is laid down in Or. 9, r. 13, Civil Procedure Code. Now, r. 13 says that if the Defendant "satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him"; and we have to see whether the learned Judge's finding that he is not satisfied that there was not a proper service of the summons is a finding of fact with which we ought to interfere. 4. 4. Now, the case made by the Defendant is this: The Defendant having employed his attorney to enter into certain correspondence with the Plaintiff upon this matter, the final result was that the Defendant's attorney, Mr. Sen, wrote a letter dated the 19th of September, 1930, to say: Since your client appears to be burning with the desire to go to Court, my friend Mr. Dutt will afford him the pleasure of meeting him there. 5. After the correspondence in September, the suit was filed on the 3rd of December and it appears that the Defendant had left Calcutta for Madhupur on the 1st of December. On the 8th of December, the Plaintiff's attorney wrote to the Defendant's attorney giving notice of the fact and enquiring whether the Defendant's attorney would "accept service of the writ of summons herein." To that, however, no reply was immediately given, but the enquiry was repeated on the 10th of December. On that day, the Defendant's attorney who, as I have already explained, had been engaged in, correspondence on this subject wrote to the Plaintiff's attorney, I have had no instruction to accept service of the writ of summons herein. Babu Haripada Dutt is at Madhupur but I do not know his address there. 6. The next thing which happened, so far as we can trace the matter, is this: On the 18th or 19th of December, the witness Girindra Chandra Mitra, who says that he is an assistant in the employ of Messrs. Hari Narayan Mukherjee and Sons, went with the Sheriff's peon to the Defendant's Calcutta residence. He was told by one Babu Lal Mohon Dutt, on the first occasion, that the Defendant was residing at Madhupur; and, upon being asked to accept service of the writ of summons on behalf of the Defendant, La] Mohon Babu said that he could not accept the service without asking the Defendant's brother Babu Kiran Chunder Dutt and he, therefore, asked the witness and the peon to come the next day. On the next day when they came, they were told that no male member of the family would accept service of the summons. So, this had been going on at the Defendant's house on the 18th and the 19th and at the attorney's office on the 10th of December. 7. On the next day when they came, they were told that no male member of the family would accept service of the summons. So, this had been going on at the Defendant's house on the 18th and the 19th and at the attorney's office on the 10th of December. 7. The letter which was sent by the Sheriff by registered post, after an order had been made under r. 11 of Chap. VIII of the Rules of the High Court, was taken by the postal peon for delivery to the Defendant at the address where he was undoubtedly staying in Madhupur; and the case which the Defendant makes, and which the learned Judge has not been satisfied of, is that when the peon brought the registered letter to the house at Madhupur, the Defendant was unfortunately out for a walk and that still more unfortunately no body except some minor grandsons of the Defendant was in the house; so that when the peon came with that registered letter there was nobody to receive it and, in particular, the Defendant never got the registered letter tendered to him. By way of adding details to that story--whether it be true or not--we have this further fact that on the 26th the Defendant wrote to the Post Master at Madhupur, saying that a letter had been tendered and had been refused in his absence on the 24th and there is the reply of the Post Master to say that the letter came back and had been returned. The Defendant's story is not that he did not know that this letter contained a writ, not that he did not know of the proceedings, but that he meant to tell his attorney to accept the service of the writ; but he gave this instruction to some young man who did not attend to it; and in one way or another, although the decree was passed on the 22nd January, 1931, he never, in fact, was aware of it until the end of January ; and he brings this application asking the learned Judge to hold that he is satisfied that the summons was not duly served. I entirely agree with the learned Judge in not being satisfied that this summons was not duly served. I entirely agree with the learned Judge in not being satisfied that this summons was not duly served. So far from being willing to afford any assistance whatever to the Plaintiff in respect of his suit, I find that his attorney, who is a friend of his, could easily have got instructions to accept the service unless he and his client were both minded to put the Plaintiff to unreasonable trouble by refusing to accept the service. There is a son of the Defendant I do not know Whether he is a major or a minor--who after taking a day's consideration to confer with his relations refused to do anything to facilitate the service on the 18th or 19th December. 8. In these circumstances, before I come to what happened in Madhupur, we may also look and see whether the action pursued by the Defendant was an action which one would expect from a man who had really not been served. We have this story about an ineffective service and then his failure to get his attorney even to say, "Let me have a copy of the summons and I will accept it and attend to the case," and, though the decree was not made till the 22nd of January, nothing was done. The decree went ex parte and then no doubt by way of putting the Plaintiff to the maximum possible trouble, an application was made to set it aside at a considerably later date. In my opinion, the learned Judge was well entitle to be most suspicious of this story that the letter was not offered to the Defendant because he was away at the particular moment when most unfortunately the peon took the letter to his house. I strongly suspect that, if that letter had contained a cheque for a thousand rupees, the Defendant would have received it and there would have been no trouble. It is a very curious thing that a man should go to Madhupur surrounded by a number of persons no one of whom is competent apparently to receive a letter on his behalf. In my judgment, the conduct of the Defendant prevents me from putting that confidence in the statement on oath which I should like to do and finding that the, learned Judge was not satisfied, I can see no reason why this Court should be satisfied. In my judgment, the conduct of the Defendant prevents me from putting that confidence in the statement on oath which I should like to do and finding that the, learned Judge was not satisfied, I can see no reason why this Court should be satisfied. The letter was sent by the Sheriff; it was returned with the endorsement "refused." It appears to me that, if the Defendant was minded to satisfy the Court that he got no opportunity to get this letter, it was for him rather than for the Plaintiff to call upon the peon or call evidence to make good the not very probable story which he asks us to accept. The position, as I understand the matter, is that under Chap. VIII, r. 11, of the Rules of the High Court, it has to be shown that the document was tendered to the addressee. If it was refused, no doubt that in itself, until explained, is prima facie good enough evidence that he had had an opportunity to accept it. It is quite true that it is open to the Defendant to show that he never refused it and that he had no opportunity to accept it. But, in my judgment, lit is necessary for the Defendant under r. 13 of Or. 9, Civil Procedure Code, to make good that case I will here say that I am not prepared to follow the ruling of the Bombay High Court which. I find to be reported in the case of Sunder Spinner v. Makan Bhula ILR 46 Bom. 130 (1921). In that case, under a similar rule, a packet was returned by the Post Office as refused. The postman gave evidence and said that the Defendant had refused to take delivery of the packet. The Defendant told another story and denied that the packet had been delivered to him. Thereupon, the learned Chief Justice, after observing that service by registered post is at any time a poor substitute for personal service which is directed by, the "Court" (I think that means by the " Code") observes: It is allowed to litigants as a matter of convenience. Thereupon, the learned Chief Justice, after observing that service by registered post is at any time a poor substitute for personal service which is directed by, the "Court" (I think that means by the " Code") observes: It is allowed to litigants as a matter of convenience. But when sitting on the original side I have invariably allowed the defendant a retrial, if, after the decree had been passed against him on evidence that the summons was sent by registered post and returned refused, he appeared and denied that the packet had ever been delivered to him by the postal authorities. 9. I can only say that I hope no such ruling will ever become established by this Court. It is quite true that service by registered post is allowed to litigants as a matter of convenience; it is not allowed to litigants as a matter of inconvenience or vanity or nuisance; and it will not necessarily be sufficient for the Defendant to come and say that he did not receive it unless the Court is satisfied that what would happen in the ordinary course did not happen and that he did not get an opportunity to accept it. In my judgment, the proper way to look at this matter is, that it is quite open to the Defendant to prove that he never refused it and that it never was tendered to him; but he must prove that proposition to the satisfaction of the Court; otherwise orders for service by registered post would become futile orders that would give rise to nothing but difficulty, trouble and delay. In my judgment, this appeal should, be dismissed with costs. Pearson, J. I agree.