JUDGMENT Shanmukham, J. 1. The defendant in O.S. No. 76 of 1983 on the file of the Sub Court, Nilgiris, is aggrieved against the Order of dismissal of his application, I.A. No. 110 of 1984 filed under Order 9, Rule 13,0f the Code of Civil Procedure. 2.Mr.Palpandian, Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case, there is no service on the appellant herein within the meaning of Order 5, Rule 19A and therefore, the Court shall make an Order setting aside the decree as against him. The Learned Counsel would emphasize on the word 'shall' employed in Order 9, Rule 13. The Court below held that ,as under Ex. B1, Ex. R4 notice was acknowledged by the appellant's wife and as the appellant did not examine his wife, there was valid service within the meaning of Order 5, Rule 15. 3. The question that falls for determination therefore is whether on the facts in this case Order 5, Rule 15 or Order 5, Rule 19A is attracted. It may be useful to refer to certain dates at this juncture. The defendant was set ex-parte as early as 8th April, 1983 and ex parte decree came to be passed on 30th August, 1983. Order 5, Rule 15 provides: Where in any suit the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and he has no agent empowered to accept such service of the summons on his behalf service may be made on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with him. It is also important to notice the heading under which the sub-rule is placed. It is under the caption 'service of summons'. Rule 19A is put under the heading 'Simultaneous issue of summons for service by post in addition to personal service'. Rule 19A states: 19A. It is also important to notice the heading under which the sub-rule is placed. It is under the caption 'service of summons'. Rule 19A is put under the heading 'Simultaneous issue of summons for service by post in addition to personal service'. Rule 19A states: 19A. (1) The Court shall, in addition to, and simultaneously with, the issue of summons for service in the manner provided in Rules 9 to 19 (both inclusive), also direct the summons to be served by registered post, acknowledgement 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. (2) When an acknowledgement purporting to be signed by the defendant or his agent is received by the Court or the postal article containing the summons is received back by the Court with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the defendant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the postal articles containing the summons, when tendered to him, the Court issuing the summons shall declare that the summons had been duly served on the defendant : Provided that where the summons was properly addressed, prepaid and duly sent by registered post, acknowledgment due, the declaration referred to in this sub-rule shall be made notwithstanding the fact that the acknowledgment having been lost or mislaid, or for any other reason, has not been received by the Court within thirty days from the date of the issue of the summons. According to Rule 15, the service is a personal service, while under Rule 19A, it is an additional service sent by post. According to Rule 15, the service is a personal service, while under Rule 19A, it is an additional service sent by post. While in Rule 15, a service on agent empowered to accept the service of summons on appellant's behalf or on any adult member of the family whether male or female will be treated as good service, according to Rule 19A unless the summons sent by registered post is acknowledged by an 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, there will be no service of summons on the defendant. In this case, it is true that the summons was served on the appellant's wife, but then the Court below rejected the respondents' contention that the wife was given the authorisation by her husband to accept any postal article. Indeed, the learned Judge held: Therefore, the authorisation said to have been given to Brama Nagaraj has not been proved. If so, I have to proceed on the basis that the appellant's wife had no authority to accept the postal article addressed to her husband and sent by registered post. It would immediately follow that she was not an authorised agent to accept the service of summons as per mandate in Rule 19A. Learned Counsel for the respondents would point out that both Rules 15 and 19A had to be read harmoniously and in such a case, even if the registered post is acknowledged by the wife who had no authority to accept such postal article, still it is a service on the adult member of the family, viz., appellant's wife and therefore, it is good service I am unable to agree. For, different prescriptions are prescribed in Rules 15 and 19A. This will immediately demonstrate that the Legislature has deliberately two different standards of service vis-a-vis the appellant's agent. Under Rule 15, it is a personal service and therefore, the Legislature thought it wise that in such a case if summons is served on any adult male or female member of the family subject to the two conditions set out therein, the service will be treated as good service. As regards Rule 19A summons is sent by registered post. Under Rule 15, it is a personal service and therefore, the Legislature thought it wise that in such a case if summons is served on any adult male or female member of the family subject to the two conditions set out therein, the service will be treated as good service. As regards Rule 19A summons is sent by registered post. Therefore, the Legislature in its wisdom thought that unless such registered article sent by post is accepted by an authorised agent, the service shall not be treated as service on the defendant. Above all, Rule 19A contemplates issue on simultaneous summons along with summons for service in the manner provided in Rules 9 to 19. This also clearly indicates that Rr.9 to 19 and 19A cover two different fields. Thus unless it is established that the appellant's wife had the authority to accept such postal article, there can be no valid service as visualized under Rule 19A. I have already referred to the finding of the learned Judge that she is not so authorised. If so, there is no escape from the conclusion that there is no valid service of summons on the appellant-defendant. 4. As per the mandate in Order 9, Rule 13, the ex parte decree shall be set aside. The only question that immediately falls for consideration is whether the order should be an unqualified one or subject to a condition. Order 9, Rule 13 states that the Court shall make an Order setting aside the decree upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently relies upon the statement of the appellant as P.W.I. His testimony is that: As per Ex. B3, I have borrowed Rs. 25,000 from Karivarathan as hand loan. It is therefore contended by the Learned Counsel for the respondents that as on this admission he had a right to apply under Order 12, Rule 6, for an interim decree on admission, it is all the more why that the Court should impose a condition, while setting aside an ex parte decree. In other words, according to the Learned Counsel for the respondents, this sum shall be directed to be paid by the appellant. Mr. In other words, according to the Learned Counsel for the respondents, this sum shall be directed to be paid by the appellant. Mr. Palpandian, Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the entire evidence has to be read as a whole together with, the stand taken by the defendant in the affidavit filed in support of the application and this Court has to exercise its discretion judiciously. The Learned Counsel across the bar would contend that there was no money due by the appellant and that the defendant has ample documentary proof in support of such a defence. Taking all these into consideration, I am of the view that if the appellant is called upon to deposit Rs. 7,500 and costs of suit, while setting aside the ex-parte decree, it will serve the interest of both parties. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. I.A. No. 110 of 1984 is allowed on condition that the appellant deposits Rs. 7,500 (Rupees Seven thousand five hundred only) and costs of suit into the trial Court within eight weeks from this date. In default, the application will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.