JUDGMENT M.P. Pandey, Member. - This is a revision from the order dated May 27, 1971 passed by Sri G.S. Seth, Addl. Commissioner, Allahabad Division, in appeal No. 233 (Etawah). 2. I have heard learned counsels of both the parties. Relevant facts are given below:- 3. One Balwant filed a suit of partition against Raghunath, s/o Nangey and Munshi, s/o Chainsukh. An ex-parte preliminary decree was passed on August 13, 1964 and the final decree was passed on September 24, 1964. An application was filed on February 11, 1965 by Munshi defendant saying that no summons was served on him and the ex-parte decree dated August 18, 1964 should be set aside. The plaintiff said that he had adequate knowledge and, in this way, the question of adequate notice became a matter of great dispute between the parties. A reference was made in the writing expert as well. Ultimately the trial court came to the conclusion that the registered notice which was served on Munshi defendant was property served and the acknowledgement receipt did bear his signature. He, therefore, held that there was sufficient notice and he rejected the restored application. In appeal the learned Addl. Commissioner also came to the conclusion, after comparing the signature of Munshi defendant on the acknowledgement receipt and on other documents bearing his known signature that they were the same and of Munshi defendant. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed. 4. Only one point has been raised before me on behalf of the revisionist objector. It has been urged that service by post is not adequate in cases contested in Revenue Courts. It is true that there is a ruling in 1947 R.D. 160 that service of summons or notices by a registered post cannot be held to be sufficient, but that ruling is in proceedings under the U.P. Tenancy Act. It is not applicable to the present case which is a case arising out of the Zamindari Abolition Act to which C.P.C. is applicable as laid down under Section 341 of Z.A. and L.R. Act. In C.P.C., it is provided that service of summons can be effected even by a registered post as given in the amendment to Order V, Rule 20 of the C.P.C. There is no doubt that service of summons can be effected by registered post as well. In C.P.C., it is provided that service of summons can be effected even by a registered post as given in the amendment to Order V, Rule 20 of the C.P.C. There is no doubt that service of summons can be effected by registered post as well. I find that a number of notices is issued from the Board of Revenue under registered post. In the instant case the service on Munshi could not be effected in the normal course and then the summons was sent by registered post. He had acknowledged it and the receipt of acknowledgement is on the file. His signature on the A.D. has been compared by the learned S.D.O. and the learned Addl. Commissioner with his known signature and they have come to a finding that it is of the same person. In my opinion, this ends the discussion whether the signature on the A.D. is that of Munshi or that of somebody-else. The two courts below have said that it is the signature of Munshi revisionist. It is a finding of fact and will have to be accepted. 5. I am, therefore, of the view that the revisionists-petitioner had adequate service and hence, the revision is discussed.