Judgment :- 1. This is a revision petition by the defendant whose application for setting aside the decree passed ex¬parte was dismissed by the courts below. The application was filed within thirty days of the decree so that the only question arising for decision is whether there was proper service of summons on the defendant. Two attempts were made to serve the defendant but both the process servers reported that the defendant was not residing at the address given in the summons. The court then ordered the plaintiff to take out summons by post. Accordingly summons was issued by registered post and it was returned by the postman with the endorsement "Refused". The court treated this as a valid service and the decree was passed ex-parte. The petitioner's case is that he was not residing there at that time and that he was not aware of the pendency of the suit or the passing of the decree, until he filed the application. The courts below came to the conclusion that the defendant was residing at the address shown in the summons and that he actually refused to accept summons sent by post. The application was accordingly dismissed. 2. The main point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no legal evidence of support the conclusions reached by the courts below and that the evidence on record supports the petitioner's contention that the summons was not served on him. Two process servers who were directed to serve the summons have made endorsements that the defendant was not residing at the address given and one of them has given evidence in this enquiry that the endorsement made by him on the summons is true. He was not cross-examined by the plaintiff. These endorsements are properly attested by the witnesses as required by the Civil Rules of Practice. The defendant has also deposed to the effect that he was not residing at the address to which summons was sent. The courts below have held that the endorsement by the postman must be presumed to be true and that the evidence adduced by the defendant is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of correctness of that endorsement. The presumption must apply to the endorsement made by the process servers attached to the court also. The courts below have held that the endorsement by the postman must be presumed to be true and that the evidence adduced by the defendant is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of correctness of that endorsement. The presumption must apply to the endorsement made by the process servers attached to the court also. O. V R.10 as in force in this State reads as follows: "Service of the summons shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed by the judge or such officer as he appoints in this behalf, and sealed with the seal of the Court: Provided that in any case, the Court may, of its own motion or on application of the plaintiff, send the summons to the defendant by registered post (acknowledgment due) in addition to or instead of the mode of service laid down in this rule. An acknowledgment purporting to be signed by the defendant shall be deemed by the Court issuing the summons to be prima facie proof of service. In all other cases, the Court may pass such orders as the Court deems fit, either declare the summons to have been duly served, or order such further service as may in its opinion be necessary." 3. The proviso to R.10 is different in Patna where it is provided that an acknowledgment purporting to be signed by the defendant or an endorsement by the postal servant that the defendant refused to take delivery may be deemed by the court issuing the summons to be prima facie proof of service. The provision is similar to the rule in force in Nagpur. The rule as amended by this court is similar to O. V R.21 (a) of Bombay and Sind. The High Court of Bombay has consistently taken the view that even though a court may proceed to pass a decree exparte on the strength of the endorsement by the postman that the packet was refused by the defendant the decree should be set aside when the defendant comes and swears that it was neither tendered nor refused. See Sunder Spinner v. Nakan Bhula (AIR 1922 Bom. 377(1) and Appabhai Notibhai v. Laxichand Zavarchand and Co. (AIR 1954 Bom. 159). In Butto Kristo Roy and others v. Gobindaram Marwari and others (AIR 1939 Patna 540) Chatterji, J. observed: "As regards Sailesh's notice, Ext. See Sunder Spinner v. Nakan Bhula (AIR 1922 Bom. 377(1) and Appabhai Notibhai v. Laxichand Zavarchand and Co. (AIR 1954 Bom. 159). In Butto Kristo Roy and others v. Gobindaram Marwari and others (AIR 1939 Patna 540) Chatterji, J. observed: "As regards Sailesh's notice, Ext. H(4) dated 2nd April 1927 which was addressed to the plaintiffs, it must be observed that there is no legal proof that it was actually served on them. It was sent in a registered cover which purports to have been received back as the addressee refused to accept it, but the peon who endorsed the refusal on the cover has not been examined nor even his handwriting has been proved. Of course a letter, if posted and not received back through the Dead Letter Office, shall be presumed to have been received by the addressee. But this presumption does not apply where the letter purports to have been returned as being refused by the addressee. In this connexion reference may be made to 19 CWN 489. The position therefore is that there is no legal evidence to prove that the notice (Ext. H(4)) was actually tendered to the plaintiffs and refused by them." 4. In view of the fact that the rule in force in this State is the same as in Bombay I am inclined to follow the view held by the High Court of Bombay. So far as the evidence in this case is concerned, the postman has not been examined and the plaintiff has not only not given any evidence but he has not even filed a counter-affidavit. In these circumstances I hold that the defendant is entitled to have the decree re-opened but it must be on terms. The defendant has filed a written statement pleading a complete discharge of the plaint claim. The suit is on promissory notes and there is no record evidencing such discharge. The promissory notes were not got back either. Though the trial court at first passed a conditional order that the decree would be set aside on security being furnished, the petitioner did not avail himself of that. After remand, he stated that he was not willing to furnish security. The promissory notes were not got back either. Though the trial court at first passed a conditional order that the decree would be set aside on security being furnished, the petitioner did not avail himself of that. After remand, he stated that he was not willing to furnish security. Considering all the circumstances I order that the Civil Revision Petition would stand allowed without costs if the defendant deposits in the trial court one-half of the decree amount within six weeks of this date, failing which, the Civil Revision Petition will stand dismissed with costs.