JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been preferred to this Court against the impugned order dated 19.10.94 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in C.M.A. No. 20/94, whereby the Appellate Court has confirmed the order of the Trial Court in C.M.A. No. 55/91 by dismissing the petitioner's application for setting aside order/decree under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the non-petitioners had filed a suit against the petitioners for recovery of rent and eviction from the disputed shop premises, in which the petitioners are residing as a tenant, on the ground of default and material alterations. The Trial Court had directed the plaintiff vide its order dated 4.2.89 to effect service on the petitioners defendants by filing the notices and the process fee with registered post as per the rules for 12th of July, 1989. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the non-petitioners had not filed registration fee and instead had got the service affected on the petitioners by substituted service in accordance with rules as envisaged by Order 5 Rule 20, Civil Procedure Code. In the impugned order, Trial Court has observed that since the service was not effected in an ordinary manner, the substituted service was the only recourse left open to the plaintiff to get the service of summons effected on the petitioners. It has come on the record that the petitioners are tenants in the shop premises at the ground floor of the same building, in which the plaintiffs/non-petitioners are residing as landlords on the first floor of the same building. Since the process server had failed to get the service affected on the petitioners in an ordinary manner on account of their refusal to accept the summons issued by the Trial Court, the process server adopted the procedure of effecting substituted service by affixation of the summons on the outer door of the house/shop premises at the first floor of the same building at a conspicuous place in the presence of two witnesses of the locality. Order 5 Rule 20(1) of Civil Procedure Code reads as under : "Where the Court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Court shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court house, and also upon some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain, or in such other manner as the Court thinks fit." 3. It is the mode of substituted service, which has been challenged by the petitioners in the present revision petition on the ground that since the Trial Court had directed to effect the service of summons by a registered post, therefore, it was not open to the process server to effect the service of summons in a manner, in which it had been done as aforesaid. 4. In my considered opinion, the Trial Court was justified in drawing up ex parte proceedings against the petitioners, in view of the fact that there was a refusal report, submitted by the process server regarding refusal of petitioners to accept summons. I am of the opinion that as law abiding citizens, it was the bounden duty of the petitioners-defendants to have accepted the service of the summons by appearing before the Trial Court on the fixed date instead of avoiding the same on flimsy grounds. 5. The process server, who is an authorised officer, deputed by the Court was under an obligation and duty to the Court to get the service effected on the petitioners/defendants in a substituted manner as aforesaid since it was on account of their deliberate avoidance and refusal that he had to get the service effected on them in a manner as aforesaid. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order, passed by the Appellate Court. In my considered opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to succeed. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order, passed by the Appellate Court. In my considered opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to succeed. I am of the view that the learned Trial Court was fully justified in drawing the presumption of proper service against the petitioners on account of their refusal to accept the service and to proceed ex parte against them. In these circumstances, it was the duty of the petitioners to have appeared before the Trial Court since the presumption of knowledge is at once drawn against them as they were well aware of the pendency of eviction proceedings against them and this fact could have been got verified by them without any difficulty if he had bonafidely made efforts in this regard and they could also accept the service of summons in the Court itself by moving to the Court immediately either in person or through a duly authorised Counsel notwithstanding the refusal of the summons as aforesaid. This shows the conduct of the petitioners, who are to be blamed for the deliberate lapse and it is not open to them to blame an officer duly deputed by the Court to perform his official duty. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in the matter of Bheru Lal v. Shanti Lal, AIR 1985, Raj. 53. I am of the opinion that this judgment does not help the petitioner in advancing their case in any manner, since this Court has specifically observed in para 11 of this Judgment, that second proviso to Order 9 Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code does not contemplate that despite the irregular service, the ex parte decree cannot be set-aside; provided the Trial Court is satisfied that the defendant has acquired the knowledge of the next date of hearing of the suit. 8. Hence the petitioner cannot take advantage of his own lapse, under the circumstances as referred to above. 9. The revision petition being devoid of merit is accordingly rejected. 10. There is no irregularity, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, passed by the Trial Court.Petition dismissed. *******