Short Note : 1. After issuance of two summons in which attempts at six occasions were made by two different process-servers, the plaintiff made an application under Order 5, rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure supported by an affidavit, alleging that the defendant was avoiding service of summons and, therefore, he be directed to be served by substituted service under Order 5, rule 20. The learned trial Judge was satisfied that there was reason to believe that the defendant was keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service and accordingly directed that he be served by substituted service by affixture under Order 5, rule 20 of the Code Thereafter, the plaintiff led evidence and prima facie proved the ground mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The learned trial Judge accordingly passed a decree for ejectment and arrears of rent against the defendant on 18-8-1973. In appeal, the Additional District Judge held that since the process server did not attempt at personal service, the issue of substituted service by affixture under Order 5, rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not justified. He accordingly allowed the application made by the defendant under Order 9, rule 13 of the Code and set aside the ex parte decree for ejectment. Held: The revision must be allowed on the short ground that the learned Additional District Judge has acted illegally and with material irregularity in passing the order that he did. In the instant case, the requirements of Order 5, rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure were clearly fulfilled. The defendant was tried to be served as many as six times by issue of two summons in the manner provided for by Order 5, rule 10 of the Code. Despite the repeated attempts to serve the summons on the defendant personally, he obviously was avoiding the service. It cannot, therefore, be said that the plaintiff did not try to get the summons served on the defendant personally. The two summons were tried to be served by two different process-servers. Despite the repeated attempts to serve the summons on the defendant personally, he obviously was avoiding the service. It cannot, therefore, be said that the plaintiff did not try to get the summons served on the defendant personally. The two summons were tried to be served by two different process-servers. The report of the first process server Pooran Singh shows that he made the repeated attempts on 15-12-1972 and 18-12-1972 and thereafter on 25-12-1972 when the children of the defendant, after knowing the contents of the summons, went inside the house and returned after five minutes and told him that the defendant was not in the house The statement of the second process-server Chhaganlal (N.A.W.2) shows that he made attempts on 8-2-1973, 9-2-1973 and 10-2-1973 to get the defendant personally served. He met the wife of the defendant and told her that he had come to serve the summons of the suit. She then went inside the house telling him that she would call her husband, but returned afterwards saying that he had gone out. The statement of the plaintiff Rajmal (N.A.W.1) also shows that he made repeated attempts to get the two summonses served on six different occasions. From this evidence, It is conclusively inevitable that the defendant was keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service. The learned Additional District Judge was, therefore, not right in assuming that there was no attempt, in the instant case, at personal service under Order 5, rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mst. Parwati Bai v. Sabola Bai, 1970 MPLJ (N) 95, Kanhaiyalal and another v. Brij Kuwar, 1976 MPWN 140, distinguished. Revision allowed.