S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) PLAINTIFF is the petitioner against an order setting aside ex pane decree for realisation of Rupees 1,46,770. 21 paise with pendente lite and future interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of realisation, cost of the suit including cost of commissioner. Opposite parties having entered appearance, the Civil Revision is heard and finally disposed of. ( 2 ) ). Petitioner supplied paints to opposite party No. 3. After consignment of the paints the order was cancelled. Value of the paints was not paid despite correspondence. Hence, suit was filed for recovery of Rupees 1,46,772. 21 paise. Notice could not be served in ordinary way for which court directed substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 C. P. C. on all the defendants. Mode of service was publication in news paper. After the service was held to be sufficient, defendants not having entered appearance, they were set ex parte, in course of ex party hearing a commissioner was appointed to inspect go- down of opposite party No. 3 who reported that paints supplied were lying in godown of defendant No. 3. An inventory was prepared by the commissioner who reported the facts to the Court. Inventory prepared was signed by opposite party No. 3. Despite the same, no steps were taken to appear in the suit and get the ex parte order set aside to contest the suit. Lastly, suit was decreed ex parte for the claimed amount with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum with cost of Commissioner and other costs at uncontested scale on 5-2-1988. Petitioner filed execution case for realisation of the amount. During pendency of execution proceeding an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed asserting that the decree was obtained on fraudulent suppression of summons in the suit and defendants could know about the decree on receipt of notice in the execution case. ( 3 ) PETITIONER filed objection asserting that defendants intentionally avoided to receive the summons in the suit. In any case, defendant No. 3 had knowledge of the suit when the commissioner went and made inventory which was signed by defendant No. 3. ( 4 ) EXECUTIVE Engineer who was posted at the time of service of notice has not been examined. In any case, defendant No. 3 had knowledge of the suit when the commissioner went and made inventory which was signed by defendant No. 3. ( 4 ) EXECUTIVE Engineer who was posted at the time of service of notice has not been examined. Present executive Engineer stated on oath that notice was not received. Petitioner while praying to take steps for substituted service asserted in the petition that notices were sent through court as well as by registered post. Considering the same court permitted substituted service. In such circumstances, heavy onus lay on the defendants to prove that notice way not served. Trial court in this case has accepted the evidence of the Executive Engineer without examining the record. It ought to have accepted the previously passed order to be correct. Reasons given by the trial court are thus, material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction. ( 5 ) NO satisfactory explanation has been given how from the inventory signed by Executive Engineer, he could not take note of pendency of the suit. Trial court was not justified that the said material is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that defendants had notice. ( 6 ) ONCE I come to conclusion that trial court has not considered the question in its right perspective, I would have set aside the impugned order for reconsideration of the question afresh since only ground is fraudulent suppression of summons. Fraud like any other criminal charge is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no finding in this regard. ( 7 ) ). Once there is no fraud, limitation comes in. Exercise of jurisdiction beyond period of limitation is without jurisdiction unless delay is condoned. This has been clearly laid down by this Court in the decision reported in AIR 1966 Ori 59 (Golak Chandra Biswal v. State of Orissa ). However, oral prayer can be made to condone delay in some circumstances. ( 8 ) ON perusal of documents annexed to the revision petition and the impugned order, I have strong suspicion that Government Pleader conducting the proceeding did not give proper advice and if my suspicion becomes correct, there is every chance of a reasonable inference that selection of law officers are made on extraneous consideration. ( 8 ) ON perusal of documents annexed to the revision petition and the impugned order, I have strong suspicion that Government Pleader conducting the proceeding did not give proper advice and if my suspicion becomes correct, there is every chance of a reasonable inference that selection of law officers are made on extraneous consideration. However, I need not delve into the matter further : since the same is not subject matter of consideration though it is relevant only for the purpose of considering whether a party should suffer on account of deficiency of its lawyer. ( 9 ) THIS is a case where State Government and its officers are defendants. Executive Engineer who is primarily responsible is remaining out of picture. A new Executive Engineer in his place had no knowledge of the suit until he received notice of execution to react immediately. While observing that the conduct of previous Executive Engineer cannot be said to be free from blemishes which should be thoroughly examined by the State Government to bring in purity in administration to have faith of the rate payers, I am inclined to hold that in the peculiar circumstances of this case, there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay. ( 10 ) WHEN an ex parte decree is set aside, this Court would not normally interfere with the same. If precedent is searched for (1971) 37 CLT 124 (Kelu Charan Pradhan v. Mani Ram), where substantial justice is done, there should be no interference. However, I find that trial court has not made adequate provision for protecting interest of plaintiff who would be deprived of a valuable right and would be prejudiced by prolonged litigation. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances, I direct that defendants shall pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) to plaintiff and shall deposit the principal amount claimed within six weeks from today failing which order of setting aside the decree shall stand vacated and ex parte decree shall stand confirmed without further reference to this Court. ( 12 ) ). In the result, civil revision is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Order accordingly.