SHARMA, Mem.–This is revision petition filed under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the judgment of Assistant Collector, Dudu dated 16.4.96 passed in revenue suit No.17/95 arising out of the facts that one suit was filed by the present petitioner under Section 53 of the Tenancy Act read with Section 125 of the Land Revenue Act by the present applicant and non-petitioner no.2 to 5 in the Court of Assistant Collector Dudu. This suit was decreed on 15.10.94. Aggrieved from this opposite party no.1 put up an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 5 ofteh Limitation Act. This application was accepted by the trial Courts judgment dated 16.4.96 and the decree was quashed. Aggrieved from this the present petitioner filed revision. Heard the parties and perused the record. (2). Learned cousnel for the petitioner argued that impugned judgment has been passed on an application submitted under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Said application was barred by time. However, bare perusal of the judgment reveals that the application has been decided even on the merits under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. (3). On the contrary, other side argued that since trial Courts decree was passed ex parte and he resides in Jaipur the service was made seems to be false one. Substituted service was made whereas there was noorder to this effect by the Court. (4). After careful examination of the submission made by the rival parties and perusal of the record I am of the view that since in the present case this is clear that service was made through substitutive mode i.e. by way of affixation and over the notice which is written by the process server that concerned party does not live in village yet he of its own affixed the notice upon residence of the party. This type of service is neither permissibiel nor legally acceptable under the law because when process server himself states that party does not reside in the village then he has no business to affix notice that too at the first attempt in absence of specific order from the Court. This type of service is neither permissibiel nor legally acceptable under the law because when process server himself states that party does not reside in the village then he has no business to affix notice that too at the first attempt in absence of specific order from the Court. Under the circumstances the trial Court has not erred in passing or condoning the delay of presenting aforesaid application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, of course bare perusal of the order reflects that he has also observed on the merit of this application under the law either he should simultaneously decide the said application or he should restrain from observing on the merits of such application while deciding application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which was presented in support of application under Order 9 Rule 13. But since prima facie the substutive service as per report of process server is also self contradictory I think he has not erred in principle while condoning the delay. Naturally the facts and circumstances of such application are bound to be stated and nevertheless impugned judgment does not prejudice merits of the case in any form. (5). Under the circumstances the present revision fails, impugned order is kept intact. Pronounced in open Court.