ORDER P.C. Pathak, J. -- 1. The defendant has filed this appeal under order 43, rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order rejecting an application under order 9, rule 13, CPC to set aside ex-parte decree dated 20.4.1983. 2. On 1.10.1981, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,17,519.22 representing unpaid price of the goods together with interest @ 18% per annum, godown charges @ 2½% per annum. The plaintiff also claimed interest pendente lite and future both, godown charges at the aforesaid rate till realisation together with costs. 3. On 25.6.1982, the Court noted that the summons issued to the defendant were not received back. Therefore, the Court ordered issue of fresh summons in addition to by registered post. Order-sheet dated 5.8.1982, shows that the summons were not issued since the process fee and registration charges were not paid. On 20.9.1982, the Court noted that the summons sent through ordinary post was not back, and was therefore awaited, and the summons through registered post had not been issued. Therefore, the Court ordered issue of summons through registered post on the same day. The suit was posted for settlement of issues on 10.11.1982. 4. On 10.11.1982, the plaintiff alone appeared but the defendant did not appear. The Court proceeded ex-parte against the defendant under second proviso to order 5, rule 19-A(2) as reproduced below:- "10.11.1982 -- Plaintiff by Shri C.M. Garg Advocate. None for the defendant. Summons for settlement of issues by registered post were issued on 1.10.82 and it is now more than a month. They are deemed to have been served under the proviso to order 5, rule 19-A(2). Case ex-parte against the deft. at 12.30 p.m. today. Case for exparte evidence on 17.1.1983." 5. The notings on Process Form show that the envelope filed by the plaintiff on 20.9.1982, was deficit in stamps. The deficiency was made good only on 1.10.1982. The office copy of summons shows that one summons bearing P.No. 478 and addressed to the defendant to file written statement one week before and to appear on 10.11.1982 for settlement of issues. At page 93 of the record is a telegram dated 8.11.1982; marked Ex.P.3, sent by the defendant staling that their legal adviser was sick, and therefore, they are unable to attend. They prayed for adjournment and also to inform them the next date of hearing. At page 93 of the record is a telegram dated 8.11.1982; marked Ex.P.3, sent by the defendant staling that their legal adviser was sick, and therefore, they are unable to attend. They prayed for adjournment and also to inform them the next date of hearing. The telegram bears an endorsement dt. 10.11.1982 "No cognizance can be taken. File". 6. As seen above, the case was fixed for ex-parte evidence on 17.1.1983. After a few adjournments, the plaintiff examined one Jayantilal on 18.4.1983 and closed their case. The Court pronounced the ex-parte judgment and decree on 30.4.1983. 7. On 24.11.1983, appellant/defendant filed application under order 9, rule 13 read with section 151, CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree alleging that they received the summons in 2nd week of October, 1982 for appearance on 10.11.1982, but their legal adviser Shri Patil fell ill, and, therefore, they could not attend the hearing on 10.11.1982. They sent a telegram to the Court on 8.11.1982 for adjournment and prayed for intimation of the next date. The defendant also sent two applications of even date through registered post and also by ordinary post confirming the telegram and repeating the prayers. The defendant was under the impression that the Court would be pleased to inform the next date of hearing. However on 21.10.1983, the defendant received a letter from the plaintiff informing them that the Court had awarded decree (copy enclosed) in favour of the plaintiff with costs and interest. Therefore, on 22.11.1983, the defendant sent an authorised agent to file necessary application. Their submission is that the proviso to O. 5, R. 19-A(2) comes into play only when the acknowledgment is lost, mislaid or has not been received by the Court; but the Court received telegram acknowledging receipt of the summons but that was ignored; the defendant was entitled to second summons or at least information of the next date; at any rate, the defendant was under bona fide impression that the Court would be pleased to communicate the next date in due course of time which constitutes sufficient cause for not attending the hearing. The application was within limitation of thirty• days from the date of knowledge i.e. 27.10.1983 of the ex-parte decree. The defendant also filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay, if any, on the aforesaid grounds. 8. The application was within limitation of thirty• days from the date of knowledge i.e. 27.10.1983 of the ex-parte decree. The defendant also filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay, if any, on the aforesaid grounds. 8. The respondent/plaintiff opposed both the applications on the ground that the registered envelope containing summons was delivered to them and the delivery is also acknowledged by the defendant through their telegram. Therefore, the limitation should be counted from the date of decree and not from the date of knowledge of ex-parte decree. The defendant examined one L.N. Malani in support of their application. The plaintiff did not examine any witness in rebuttal. 9. The learned trial Court by the impugned order, rejected the application as barred by limitation and that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Hence this appeal. 10. Article 123 of the Limitation Act provides period of 30 days from the date of decree for making application to set aside ex-parte decree, but where the summons was not "duly served", the period of thirty days is counted from the date of knowledge. The appellant submits that the limitation should be counted from the 'date of knowledge' of the decree and not from the 'date of decree' inasmuch as the summons was not "duly served" on them. The Explanation to Article 123 lays down that 'substituted service' shall not be deemed to be 'due service', but is silent whether the 'deemed service' under the proviso to rule 19-A(2) of order 5 is also 'due service' or not. It is for the Parliament to examine whether the benefit of counting limitation from the date of knowledge should also be extended to 'deemed service' by adding it in the explanation, since it is very often said, service by registered post by any yard-stick is a poor substitute of personal service. 11. Rule 19-A of order 5 runs as under:-- "Rule 19-A. -- Simultaneous issue of summons for service by post in addition to personal service. 11. Rule 19-A of order 5 runs as under:-- "Rule 19-A. -- 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 rules 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. (2) When an acknowledgment 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 article containing the summons, when tendered to him, the Court issuing the summons shall declare that the summons had been duly served on the defendants: 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 summons." Sub-rule (1) provides that the summons by registered A/D post to the defendant shall be in addition to and simultaneous with the issue of summons under Rr. 9 to 19. In the present case, the Court by order dated 22.6.1982 directed issue of fresh summons by registered post in addition to the summons to be sent by ordinary post. The record further discloses that on 19.8.1982 summons bearing P. No. 368 was issued to the defendant. However, summons through registered A/D post was not issued since the postage stamps were deficit. When that was made good on 1.10.1982, the summons bearing P. No. 478 was sent to the defendant through post on the same day. The record further discloses that on 19.8.1982 summons bearing P. No. 368 was issued to the defendant. However, summons through registered A/D post was not issued since the postage stamps were deficit. When that was made good on 1.10.1982, the summons bearing P. No. 478 was sent to the defendant through post on the same day. The record does not contain the postal receipt issued against a registered letter. There is no other proof to show that the envelope containing the summons was sent through registered A/D post. The envelope and the acknowledgment were not received back within 30 days. Therefore, the Court declared 'deemed service' of summons on the defendant. 12. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether the summons was 'duly served' on the defendant, in other words whether the limitation should be computed from the date of decree or from the date of knowledge thereof. The defendant is a 'Private Ltd. Co.' and a resident of Delhi. Rules 9 to 20 of O. 5 provide for service of summons on defendants who reside within the jurisdiction of the Court issuing the summons. Rule 19-A introduced by CPC Amendment Act, 1976, provides additional mode of service thouugh registered post. The summons through registered post is not in lieu or in substitution of other modes but 'in addition to' and 'simultaneously with' the summons issued under Rr. 9 to 19. A reading of rule 19-A shows that the additional mode of service through registered post is only for such defendants who are to be served in accordance with Rr. 9 to 19, namely such defendants or their agents who reside or carry on business at a place within the jurisdiction of the Court issuing the summons. Therefore, rule 19-A is not attracted in the present case inasmuch as the defendant does not reside within the jurisdiction of the Court issuing the summons. 13. Further, the Court also failed to comply the mandatory requirements of R. 19-A of O. 5. 'The summons through registered post was sent on 1.10.1982, but the Court failed to issue simultaneously the summons through ordinary means for service on the defendant. There is also no material to show that the summons was in fact sent through registered post. The record does not contain receipt issued by the postal authorities while accepting a registered letter. 'The summons through registered post was sent on 1.10.1982, but the Court failed to issue simultaneously the summons through ordinary means for service on the defendant. There is also no material to show that the summons was in fact sent through registered post. The record does not contain receipt issued by the postal authorities while accepting a registered letter. Therefore, the Court below committed an error in raising a presumption of 'deemed service' under the proviso to rule 19-A (2) of O. 5, and in proceeding ex-parte against the defendant under rule 6 of O. 9. 14. In Union of India v. Sri Laxmi Oil Mills AIR 1984 Pat. 252 , while serving summons by registered post, no summons was issued in addition to and simultaneously in the manner provided in Rr. 9 to 19, the Division Bench held that the service of summons through registered post was not valid. It was also held that without a declaration that the summons was duly served, the Court below could not fix a date for ex-parte hearing. The ex-parte decree was accordingly set aside. In the present case also the Court below failed to make a declaration of due service under the proviso to R. 19-A(2) of O. 5. 15. I may also usefully refer to Harnam Singh v. Durga General Stores (1986(I) MPWN 205=M.A. No. 103/81, decided on 23.3.1986). In this case, the summons was issued by registered post alone. No summons for personal service as provided in Rr. 9 to 19 was issued. The Court held that it is only in cases in which the Court has directed simultaneous issue of summons for service by post in addition to summons for personal service under sub-rule (1) of R. 19-A that, in the event of the postal article containing. the summons having been received back by it with the endorsement of refusal, the Court can declare that the summons had been duly served on the defendant under sub-rule (2) of the said rule. A similar view was taken in Nandkishore Kajriwal and Sons v. M.P. State Textiles Corpn. (1983 MPWN 369=M.A. No. 108/82, decided on 18.4.1983), by a Single Judge of Indore Bench. 16. Rule 21 of O. 5 provides for issue of summons to a defendant who resides within the jurisdiction of another Court. The rule contemplates sending of summons to the Court in whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. (1983 MPWN 369=M.A. No. 108/82, decided on 18.4.1983), by a Single Judge of Indore Bench. 16. Rule 21 of O. 5 provides for issue of summons to a defendant who resides within the jurisdiction of another Court. The rule contemplates sending of summons to the Court in whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. Rule 23 provides that such Court shall serve the summons as if it had been issued by it and shall return summons together with record of his proceedings to the Court issuing the summons. There is a local amendment by M.P. High Court; adding rule 25-A after rule 25. The same is reproduced as under:- "25-A. Service where defendant resides in India but outside Madhya Pradesh. -- Where the defendant resides in India but outside the limits of Madhya Pradesh, the Court may, in addition to any other mode of service, send the summons by registered post to the defendant at the place where he is residing or carrying on business. An acknowledgment purporting to be signed by him or an endorsement by a postal servant that the defendant refused service may be deemed by the Court issuing the summons to be prima facie proof of service." (16.9.1960). 17. Rule 25-A empowers the Courts to issue summons by post in addition to other mode of service. Even this rule does not dispense with service of summons in the ordinary manner altogether. Where no summons on the ordinary manner was at all issued and the summons by the registered post was offered to a person who was not proved to be an agent of the defendant Firm, authorised to accept the summons, it was held that the service of summons under R. 25-A could not be held to the effective or legal. See Gulabchand Kishanlal Firm v. Purushottamdas. 1962 MPLJ SN 281. 18. Recently a Division Bench of Indore Bench in Smt. Chhutbai and another v. Madanlal and another AIR 1989 MP 330 , set aside an ex-parte decree on a finding that a copy of the plaint did not accompany the summons served on the defendant and therefore the limitation for application under O. 9, R. 13 was counted from the date of knowledge of the decree. In Nanda Dayaram Jat v. Raja Ram Ramaji Jat AIR 1964 MP 261 , the summons served on the defendant mentioned the date for his appearance which was a holiday. In Nanda Dayaram Jat v. Raja Ram Ramaji Jat AIR 1964 MP 261 , the summons served on the defendant mentioned the date for his appearance which was a holiday. The application filed within 30 days of the date of knowledge of the decree was allowed. In Kamlabai v. Dhula 1959 JLJ 253 = AIR 1959 MP 193 , the defendant was sought to be served by publication in the daily Hindi newspaper. The Court found that he was a labourer engaged in Chambal Dam and no copy of summons was affixed on conspicuous part of his house. The service so made on the defendant was held not a 'due service' and the limitation was counted from the date of knowledge of the decree. 19. In K.A. Desai & Co. v. Vijaysinghji Bhimsinghji AIR 1954 Sau. 84, on receipt of summons sent through registered post by defendant's clerk, the defendant sent a telegram stating "Unwell. Certificate follows. Kindly adjourn". The defendant also posted a letter to the same effect. The Court did not take any notice of telegram or the letter and proceeded ex-parte against the defendant. On receipt of notice of the passing of the ex-parte decree, the defendant applied for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The High Court held that the trial Court had no power to issue the summons by registered post in the first instance when the defendant admittedly resided without the jurisdiction of the Court. The conditions mentioned in Rr. 9, 19 and 25 (as they stood then) were also not satisfied. The summons was, therefore, held not duly served and the application within 30 days of the knowledge of the decree was held within limitation and the decree was set aside. 20. In Hardasmal Khubchand Kerpalani v. Jagan Nath Jauhrimal AIR 1926 Lah. 579, it was held that no ex-parte proceeding could be made under O. 9, R. 6 on the basis of service through registered post in the first instance or on the ground that the defendant admits receipt of summons by sending a letter for adjournment. Upon receipt of summons by registered post as also the one sent in ordinary way, the defendant sent a letter to the Court asking for postponement of the case. The Court did not take any notice of that letter and proceeded ex-parte. Upon receipt of summons by registered post as also the one sent in ordinary way, the defendant sent a letter to the Court asking for postponement of the case. The Court did not take any notice of that letter and proceeded ex-parte. The defendant sent reply prepaid telegram to the Court asking the next date of hearing. No reply was sent by the Court. On an application filed by the defendant to set aside ex-parte decree, the Court held that under proviso to rule 10 of O. 5 (as it stood then) a summons under a registered cover could be sent in the first instance but it was not proper to take ex-parte proceedings on that basis. The Court held that the defendant was ill advised in asking for a postponement of the case by addressing letter to a Judge by post still he was anxious to defend the suit and on being told by the Court that no notice could be taken of his letter, he took immediate step to defend the suit. The Court held that the summons was not duly served, the absence of the defendant was not intentional and therefore the ex-parte decree was set aside. 21. In the present case, the Court below proceeded ex-parte against the defendant raising a presumption of 'deemed service' under the proviso to rule 19-A(2) of O. 5, which could not be invoked to the facts of the present case, since the defendant resides in Delhi i.e. beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Bhopal issuing the summons. Further, R. 19-A was not complied with by issue of summons simultaneously and in addition to the summons under rules 9 to 19 of O. 5. The Court below also failed to issue summons in accordance with R. 21, which provides issue of summons to the Court in whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. There is also no compliance of rule 25-A as locally amended by this Court to issue summons to a defendant residing in India but outside the State of M.P. Merely because defendant admits that the summons was served on them in or about second week of October, 1982, the Court below was not right in proceeding ex-parte against the defendant. 22. 22. In Dhal Singh Kushal Singh v. Anandrao Kakde 1960 JLJ 865 = AIR 1960 MP 378 , it was held that the expression "duly served" must receive a strict interpretation and it means service of summons in compliance with the provisions laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. In tins case, the summons through registered post was issued to the defendant without any justification and without fulfilling the prerequisite of O. 5, rule 20 or 20-A (as they stood then). The summons was 'refused' by the defendant. The Court held that the summons was not 'duly served' and therefore the starting point of limitation for application to set aside ex-parte decree was held to be the date of knowledge of the decree. 23. In view of the foregoing discussions, it must be held that the summons was not 'duly served' on the defendant and the application filed within 30 days of the date of knowledge of the ex-parte decree was within limitation and in consequence thereof the ex-parte decree is liable to be set aside. 24. The appeal allowed. The ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 30.4.1983, are hereby set aside subject to the condition that the defendant/appellant deposits into the trial Court or pays to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs within three months from the date of this order. The trial Court shall allow a reasonable time to the defendant to file their written statement and shall thereafter proceed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. The parties, through their respective counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on 26.4.1990. The record of the Court below be despatched within 10 days of this order. No order as to costs in this appeal.