Judgment :- 1. The appeal arises from an order refusing to set aside an ex parte decree passed against the appellants. 2. Though the parties to the suit reside in the Coimbatore district of Tamil Nadu, the suit was filed in the Sub Court, Trivandrum apparently oh the ground that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that court. The court issued summons to the defendants by registered post returnable by 21-1-78. The postal authorities returned the summons with an endorsement of refusal. On 21-1-78 when the case was taken up the defendants were absent and were declared ex parte. On the plaint claim being proved by affidavit, the suit was decreed on 28-2-1978. Execution was taken up in due course and notice of execution was served on the defendants through the Sub Court, Erode. The defendants thereupon filed I. A. 1723 of 1979 for setting aside the ex parte decree stating that they were not served with summons and that they came to know of the decree only on 23-2-79 when the notice of execution was served on them. Basing on the admission of pw.1, the father of defendants 2 and 3, that the address given of the defendants on the cover which purported to contain the summons and the copy of the plaint was correct, the learned Subordinate Judge held that there was proper service of summons. The petition was accordingly dismissed. It is this order that is challenged in this appeal. 3. The point for decision is whether there has been proper service of summons. The law applicable is the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act 104 of 1976. This is not disputed. Order V, R.21 provides that where the defendant resides within the jurisdiction of a court other than, the one which issues the summons, summons may be sent to that court either by one of the officers of the Court issuing the summons or by post. The service of summons on the defendant is to be effected by the Court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. The usual mode of service is by delivery or tendering a copy of the summons by an officer of the Court to the defendant, if practicable or to an agent of the defendant who is empowered to accept summons or where he has no agent, to an adult member of his family residing with him. The usual mode of service is by delivery or tendering a copy of the summons by an officer of the Court to the defendant, if practicable or to an agent of the defendant who is empowered to accept summons or where he has no agent, to an adult member of his family residing with him. The person who accepts the summons is to sign on the original of the summons in acknowledgment of such acceptance. (See Order V, R.10 to 16). R.17 of Order V deals with cases of refusal of summons by a defendant to whom it is tendered. In such cases, the serving officer should affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and should return the original to the Court from which it was issued with a report that he has so affixed the copy the circumstances under which he did so and the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed. 4. From the above provisions, it is clear that the ordinary mode of service that the law contemplates is service through an officer of the Court. Service of summons by post was provided by R.20A which was inserted by Central Act 65 of 1956. Such service by post was in lieu of or in addition to service through officer of Court in cases the original summons was returned unserved. R.20A (2) dealt with refusal of summons sent by registered post. S.20A, however, stands deleted by the Amendment Act of 1976. At present, service by post is provided in R.19A which is added by the Amendment Act of 1976. The rule reads: "Simultaneous issue of summons for service by post in addition to personal service-(1) The Court shall, in addition to. S.20A, however, stands deleted by the Amendment Act of 1976. At present, service by post is provided in R.19A which is added by the Amendment Act of 1976. The rule reads: "Simultaneous issue of summons for service by post in addition to personal service-(1) The Court shall, in addition to. and simultaneously with, the issue of summons for service in the manner provided in R.9 to 19 (both inclusive) also direct the summons to be served by registered post, acknowledgment due, addressed to the defendant, or his agent empowered to accept the service, at the place where the defendant, or his agent, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain: Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall require the Court to issue a summons for service by registered post, where, in the circumstances of the case, the Court considers it unnecessary." Thus even though service by registered post is permissible, it has to be done in addition to and simultaneously with the issue of summons for service in the manner provided in R.9 to 19. In other words, the statute does not contemplate service of summons through registered post in cases where summons through Court has not been taken. R.9(3) framed by the Kerala High Court, no doubt, deviates from the above provision and permits service of summons by post even without a prior attempt through court. The sub-rule reads; "Where the defendant resides in India whether within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted or not, the Court may direct the proper officer to cause a summons under this order to be addressed to the defendant at the place where he ordinarily resides or carries on business or works for gain and sent to him by registered post prepaid for acknowledgment. An acknowledgment purporting to be signed by the defendant shall be deemed to be sufficient proof of service of such summons." The rule does not provide for cases of refusal of summons issued through registered post. 5. Kerala R.9 (3) and R.20A (2) came up for interpretation before a Division Bench of this Court in Daveed Aseervadam v. Govinda Pillai (1970 KLT. 907). The court held that since R.9 (3) says nothing about an endorsement of refusal, the implication is clear that an endorsement of refusal is not to be deemed to be sufficient proof of service. Kerala R.9 (3) and R.20A (2) came up for interpretation before a Division Bench of this Court in Daveed Aseervadam v. Govinda Pillai (1970 KLT. 907). The court held that since R.9 (3) says nothing about an endorsement of refusal, the implication is clear that an endorsement of refusal is not to be deemed to be sufficient proof of service. In such cases, sub-rule (2) of R.20A has no application and when a summons issued under R.9 (3) is returned with an endorsement by the postman that it was refused, there is no due service of the summons. 6. Reference may in this connection be made to S.97 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. Under the said provision any amendment made or any provision inserted in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by a State Legislature or a High Court before the commencement of the said Amendment Act, shall except in so far as such amendment or provision is consistent with the provisions of the said Code stand repealed. Evidently, R.9 (3) added in Kerala in so far as it provides for issue of summons by registered post otherwise than as provided in R.19A is inconsistent with the provisions of the Amendment Act, 104 of 1976. The result is than R.9 (3) added in Kerala stands repealed by virtue of S.97 (1) of the Amendment Act. 7. It follows that under the law as it stands now, service of summons through registered post is permitted only in addition to and simultaneously with the issue of summons for service in the manner provided in R.9 to 19. An endorsement of refusal can be acted upon only if the procedure in Order V, R.19A has been followed. 8. In the instant case, there is no case for the respondent that summons to the appellants had been taken through court and as such, there has not been proper service of summons. The court below has, therefore, gone wrong in refusing to set aside the decree passed against the appellants. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The ex parte decree against the appellants will stand set aside and the suit will be restored to file and disposed of according to law. The appellants will be entitled to their costs in the appeal. The case will stand posted for appearance of parties before the trial court to 3-12-1979. Allowed.