ORDER 1. Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. 161/83 before Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. Respondent defendant was served with summons by registered post. He remained absent on the date of hearing and an ex parte decree was passed against him on 19th March 1984. A petition was filed by him as I.A. 719/84 to get the ex parte decree set aside on the ground that he was not served with summons through court and that he was advised that he need appear only after summons is served by a serving officer of the court. He knew about the decree when he enquired with his Advocate on 31st May 1984 and immediately thereafter the petition to set aside ex parte decree was filed. The petition was resisted by plaintiff-revision petitioner who contended that defendant was served with summons and there was no genuine reason for his non-appearance on the date of hearing. The court below allowed the application on condition to pay costs. That order is challenged in this revision. 2. It is urged on behalf of revision petitioner that summons was served on the defendant by registered post and that amounts to proper service. The receipt of summons by post is admitted by respondent but his excuse for the non-appearance appears to be that he was advised that he would get summons through court and that he need appear only after he is served summons by a serving officer of the court. It was under these circumstances that respondent remained absent and the decree passed against him ex parte. The short point to be decided is whether there has been proper service of summons on the defendant. 3. Order V, C.P.C. is the statutory provision regulating service of process of court in civil cases. The service of summons on defendants residing within the jurisdiction of the court in which the suit is instituted is governed by R.9 to 19 of Order V. Simultaneous service of summons is provided for in R.19A and substituted service in R.20. The ordinary and usual mode of service of summons on a defendant residing within the jurisdiction of the court is by delivering the summons on the defendant in person unless he has an agent empowered to accept service in which case the service on such agent shall be sufficient. The ordinary and usual mode of service of summons on a defendant residing within the jurisdiction of the court is by delivering the summons on the defendant in person unless he has an agent empowered to accept service in which case the service on such agent shall be sufficient. If the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and he has no agent empowered to accept service of summons on his behalf service may be made on any adult member of the family who is residing with him. The person who accepts the summons be it the defendant or his agent or any adult member of his family shall endorse the acknowledgment of service by signing on the original summons. 4. The procedure to be followed by the serving officer in case the defendant or his agent or any adult member of his family refuses to sign the acknowledgment or when the defendant cannot be found after" using all due and reasonable diligence is provided for in R.17. In such cases the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business and return the original to the court with a report. In case the return of summons under R.17 by a serving officer is not verified by his affidavit the court has to examine him on oath and may declare that the summons has been duly served. If it is verified by an affidavit the court need not examine the serving officer. Mere averment that notice has been affixed at .a certain place and on a certain date does not dispense with the statutory requirement under R.19. Under that rule the court can declare that summons has been duly served but before making such a declaration the court has to be satisfied that there had been due service by affixture at the house of the defendant or place where he ordinarily resides or carries on business. The word 'shall' in R.19 used in a mandatory sense and as such the court has to follow the procedure embodied in that rule. The word 'shall' in R.19 used in a mandatory sense and as such the court has to follow the procedure embodied in that rule. In case the return of the serving officer is not verified by an affidavit the court has to make an enquiry by examining the serving officer. If the return is so verified the court has a discretion either to examine the serving officer or to dispense with, such examination. In all such cases the affidavit of the serving officer as contemplated under R.19 has therefore to be insisted by the court before proceeding to declare that summons has been duly served on the defendant. That is essential since the ordinary mode of service is the one in accordance with R.9 to 19 of Order V, C.P.C. 5. In order to avoid delay in serving summons on the defendant and to see that service of summons is expeditiously done R.20A was introduced by the Central Act 65 of 1956. R.20A reads thus: "(1) Where, for any reason whatsoever, the summons is returned unserved, the Court may, either in lieu of or in addition to, the manner provided for service of summons in the foregoing rules, direct the summons to be served by registered post addressed to the defendant or his agent empowered to accept service at the place where the defendant or his agent ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. (2). An acknowledgment purporting to be signed by the defendant or the agent or an endorsement by a postal employee that the defendant or the agent refused to take delivery may be deemed by the Court issuing the summons to be prima facie proof of service." 6. Under this rule summons could be issued through post either in lieu of or in addition to the manner provided under R.9 to 19 of Order V. That is possible only in cases where the summons was returned unserved by the serving officer of the court. It was thereafter that R.9 (3) was introduced by the Kerala High Court which permitted service of summons by post even without a prior attempt through court. It was thereafter that R.9 (3) was introduced by the Kerala High Court which permitted service of summons by post even without a prior attempt through court. That sub-rule reads thus: "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." That sub-rule provides for a declaration that of sufficiency of service of summons in case the letter sent by registered post was received by the defendant and his acknowledgment obtained. No provision is made therein regarding refusal of summons on the part of the defendant. It necessarily follows that a refusal of the summons by the defendant when it was attempted to be served on him by post does not amount to due service. 7. R.20A was repealed and R.19A introduced by the Amendment Act of 1976. R.19A enables the court to issue summons simultaneously by post in addition to personal service. Sub-rule (1) of that rule read thus: "The court shall, in addition to, and simultaneously with, the issue or 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." 8. By the amendment the provision to serve summons by post in lieu of or in addition to personal service in case the summons is returned unserved was done away with and provision has been made for issue of simultaneous summons by post in addition to personal service. By the amendment the provision to serve summons by post in lieu of or in addition to personal service in case the summons is returned unserved was done away with and provision has been made for issue of simultaneous summons by post in addition to personal service. The position therefore is that before amendment of 1976 summons could be served through post in lieu of summons through a serving officer of court or in addition to such service whereas after the amendment direction for issue of service by registered post can be issued only in addition to and simultaneously with the issue of summons in the manner provided in R.9 to 19. The necessity of personal service on the defendant is reiterated by the Amendment Act of 1976 by taking away S.20A from the Code and introducing R.19A. 9. On a reading of rule 19A it would appear that in every case the court is bound to issue summons to be served by post in addition to and simultaneously with the issue of summons in the manner provided in R.9 to 19. The ordinary mode of service is provided in R.9 to 19. R.19A is an enabling provision intended to enable the party to take out summons by post in addition to and simultaneously with summons sent through court. It therefore means that the court is not bound to issue summons by post in all cases whereas R.19A has to be 'invoked only if the plaintiff intends to effect simultaneous service by post. The word 'shall' in R.19A is used not in a mandatory sense whereas it has to be taken as 'may'. The word 'may' is seen used instead of the word 'shall' in the rule quoted in the decision in Ashokumar Shantilal Shah v. State Bank of India AIR 1990 Bombay 163. R.19A is therefore a supplementary provision introduced by the amendment intending to prevent delay in service of summons. The service of summons by post was permitted by R.19A only in addition to and simultaneous with the issue of summons in the manner provided in R.9 to 19. In other words the primacy of service of summons under R.9 to 19 has been recognised even after the amendment. The court does not contemplate service of summons through registered post in cases where summons had not been taken out in the manner provided under R.9 to 19. In other words the primacy of service of summons under R.9 to 19 has been recognised even after the amendment. The court does not contemplate service of summons through registered post in cases where summons had not been taken out in the manner provided under R.9 to 19. R.9(3) introduced by the Kerala High Court is inconsistent with the provisions of the Amendment Act of 1976 and by virtue of S.97(1) of the Amendment Act, 104 of 1976 that sub-rule stands repealed. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in Mohan Traders v. Cattle and Poultry Feeds 1979 KLT 866 has held that 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. Following that decision I hold that the court has no jurisdiction to send summons to a person residing within the jurisdiction of that court by registered post except in addition to and simultaneously with the summons send through a serving officer of the court. 11. On issue of summons in the manner provided in R.19A if the defendant is served by either of the modes that service amounts to due service of summons. The service of summons by a serving officer amounts to proper service under R.16. When defendant refuses to accept summons or cannot be found the serving officer has to, follow the procedure prescribed in R.17 and the court can declare that summons has been duly served on examining the serving officer on oath in case his report is not verified by an affidavit and without such examination in case the report is verified by an affidavit. In either case it is advisable that the court should insist on the affidavit of the serving officer regarding the attempt made by the serving officer to serve summons, the refusal by defendant and the affixture of the summons on a conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. If the serving officer is not able to serve the defendant with summons and if the summons is served by registered post such service amounts to proper service under R.19(2) of the Code. If the serving officer is not able to serve the defendant with summons and if the summons is served by registered post such service amounts to proper service under R.19(2) of the Code. There may be cases where the postal article containing summons was returned by the postman with the endorsement that the addressee had refused to take delivery of the postal article when tendered to him. In cases where an acknowledgement purporting to be signed by the defendant or his agent is received by the court or in the case of a refusal with the endorsement mentioned above the court shall declare that summons had been duly served on the defendant. The court is also entitled to draw a presumption that summons has been duly served in case the summons properly addressed and duly sent by registered post has not been received by the court within 30 days from the date of the issue of summons. 12. In the light of the principles enunciated above it has to be seen whether there has been proper service in this case. It is admitted that summons was not taken out in the mode provided for under R.9 to 19. In other words no attempt was made to serve summons through a serving officer of the court. Summons was sent by registered post and accepted by the defendant. It may be contended that defendant was aware of the suit and he had also received a copy of the summons in time. But R.19A does not contemplate issue of summons by post in lieu of summons through court whereas such Summons can be sent only in addition to and simultaneously with the issue of summons to be served by a serving officer of court. As held by this court in Mohan Traders' case 1979 KLT 866 (supra) there has not been compliance of R.19A and as such there is no proper service of summons. The court below was therefore right in setting aside the ex parte decree. The order is not vitiated by error of jurisdiction or any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in revision. In the result the revision is dismissed, but without costs.