P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed in R. A. No. 240/98 dated 24-10-2000 on the file of Chief Judge, city Small Causes Court, Hyderabad confirming the order passed in LA. No. 483/ 98 in R. C. No. 473/96 on the file of iv Additional Rent Controller, at Hyderabad. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that Abdul rasheed and Abdul Waheed, father-in-law and son-in-law were arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 in R. C. No. 473/96 and one Salam was impleaded as 3rd respondent in the said rent Control proceedings. The said 1st and the 2nd respondents filed an application la. No. 483/98 to condone the delay of 70 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte eviction order dated 27-4-1998 and the same was dismissed by the Court of first instance on 1-9-1998 and aggrieved by the same R. A. No. 240/98 was filed and since Abdul Rasheed died, in I. A. No. 540/2000 on 28-6-2000 Aktar Begum, wife of Abdul Waheed, who is also the daughter of Abdul Rasheed was brought on record and the learned Chief judge, City Small Causes Court at hyderabad, by the order dated 24-10-2000 had dismissed R. A. No. 240/98 and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil revision petition is filed. ( 3 ) SRI M. Basith AH Yavar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners had made elaborate submissions and had drawn my attention to the proceedings in r. C. No. 473/96, from the date of first hearing till the ex parte order of eviction was made against them and also to subsequent events. The learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that respondents 1 and 2 in the r. C. had not been served at all and 3rd respondent alone was served and the learned counsel had pointed out several dates and also the mistakes committed by the Court below, which may not be relevant for the purpose of deciding the matter. However, it can be taken note that the matter was adjourned several times and steps had not been taken, but ultimately on 1-5-1997 steps had been taken and publication was made on 16-6-1997 and the matter was adjourned to 27-7-1997. However, it can be taken note that the matter was adjourned several times and steps had not been taken, but ultimately on 1-5-1997 steps had been taken and publication was made on 16-6-1997 and the matter was adjourned to 27-7-1997. The 3rd respondent in the main R. C. alone entered into compromise on 27-4-1998 and the 3rd respondent requested only three days time for vacating the premises. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 in the main R. C. had no knowledge about the ex parte order of eviction dated 27-4-1998 and an application was filed on 23-7-1998, which is no doubt within the period of limitation as per their date of knowledge, but however by way of abundant caution an application to condone delay was filed and it was erroneously dismissed. It was also stated that in view of Article 123 of the limitation Act, 1963, there is no delay. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on Rule 22 sub-rule (4) and also rule 8 clause (3) of A. P. Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961, in short called "rules" hereinafter. ( 4 ) SRI Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, representing respondents 1 and 2 had made elaborate submissions that substituted service also is service in law. The R. C. was filed in the year 1996 and summons had been sent on several occasions and summons could not be served and the Urdu newspaper "the Rahnuma-E-Deccan Daily" is the largest circulated Urdu daily and the learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to several portions of the order of the Court of first instance and also the appellate authority and had contended that the delay was not explained at all. The learned Counsel also had contended that nobody was examined in the case and the conduct of the parties also clearly goes to show that they have been adopting delaying tactics and they are playing with the process of the Court. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to the docket proceedings of the learned Rent Controller dated 27-12-1996 and 1-5-1997. The learned counsel also had pointed out how deliberately summons had been avoided and under what circumstances the landlords were constrained to make the publication. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that akthar Begum filed O. S. No. 2029/98 for injunction against the landlords, but however the suit was not pressed. The learned counsel also had pointed out how deliberately summons had been avoided and under what circumstances the landlords were constrained to make the publication. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that akthar Begum filed O. S. No. 2029/98 for injunction against the landlords, but however the suit was not pressed. The learned Counsel further had contended that in fact the 3rd respondent in the main R. C. had been in possession of the property and the matter was settled between the landlords and the 3rd respondent in the main R. C. and just with a view to cause inconvenience and to create complications, the present application is thought of by the revision petitioners and this Revisional Court need not interfere in a matter of this nature. ( 5 ) THE revision petitioners filed c. M. P. No. 13526/2001 for reception of caveat and the registered post envelope, most probably to show the conduct of the parties. Though it does not throw much light on the matter in controversy, inasmuch as it is only a part of record of this Court, the additional documents filed under Order 41, Rule 27 c. P. C. are received. ( 6 ) IN the present case on hand, the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioners admittedly is an ex parte order of eviction and it appears that there was compromise between the landlords and the 3rd respondent. Be that as it may, there was only substituted service by publication and there was no actual service on respondents 1 and 2 in the main R. C. As already stated supra, during the pendency of the appeal, abdul Rasheed died and Akthar Begum, the 3rd revision petitioner-daughter of Abdul rasheed is brought on record. The explanation of Article 123 of the Limitation act, 1963 says, "for the purpose of this article substituted service under Rule 20 of order 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall not be deemed to be due service". It is also pertinent to note that Article 123 of the limitation Act, 1963 deals with the aspect of setting aside of a decree passed ex parte or to re-hear, an appeal or decree, heard ex parte. It is also pertinent to note that Article 123 of the limitation Act, 1963 deals with the aspect of setting aside of a decree passed ex parte or to re-hear, an appeal or decree, heard ex parte. In M. Ramaingam v. B. M. K. Maheshwari, 1984 (1) M. L. J. 285, a Division bench of Madras High Court had expressed the view that there may be circumstances to impute knowledge to the defendant or defendants who may be avoiding service for obvious reasons and in such a case, the question of knowledge for reckoning the period of limitation will be a relevant factor. However, in the present case, an application to condone the delay of 70 days had been filed, but however both the Courts had negatived the relief to the revision petitioners. In Vuppala Lakshmi Narasimham v. Costu ramaiah Gupta, 1981 (1) An. WR 186, it was held that the Court can order substituted service under Order 5, Rule 20 CPC, only on being satisfied that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service by normal method. In M. A. Qader v. Mohd. Azmat Ali, 1988 (1) ALT 783, a Division Bench of this Court was pleased to observe:"in a case where the order is pronounced when the respondent is not served with notice it will work injustice and hardship to count the period of limitation from the date when the order has been pronounced in the Court, though he has no knowledge when the order has in fact been passed. It therefore follows that Rule 8 (3) must be so interpreted as to enable the party who is set ex parte to reckon the period of limitation for setting aside the ex parte order where summons has not been duly served, from the date when he has actually come to know of the passing of such an order". In Mahavir Pershad and others v. Gulam daras Khan, 1993 (1) An. WR 509, it was held that in a case where summons are not served, the period of limitation for filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree starts from the date of knowledge of the decree and therefore the application filed by the tenant to set aside the ex parte order was held to be in time. WR 509, it was held that in a case where summons are not served, the period of limitation for filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree starts from the date of knowledge of the decree and therefore the application filed by the tenant to set aside the ex parte order was held to be in time. Rule 22 (4) of the Rules reads as follows:-"the service of summons under the Act on the person shall be effected in any of the following ways:- (a) by giving or tendering it to such person; or (b) if such person is not found, by leaving it as his last known place or abode or business of by giving or tendering it to some adult member of his family; or (c) if the address of such person is known to the Controller, the appellate authority or other authorised person, by sending it to him by registered post; or (d) if none of the means aforesaid is available by affixing it in some conspicuous part of his last known place of abode or business". Likewise, Rule 8 (3) of the Rules reads as follows:-" Where an order is passed ex parte against a tenant or a landlord, or an order of dismissal for default is passed, by the Controller, the party affected may, within thirty days from the date of the pronouncement of the order in open Court, apply to the Controller by whom the ex parte order or the order of dismissal was passed, for an order to set it aside, and if he satisfies the Controller that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient case from appearing when the application was called on for hearing or that such default was occasioned due to circumstances beyond his control, the Controller shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order or the order of dismissal passed, as the case may be upon such terms as to costs, payments into Court or otherwise as the Controller thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the application. Provided that no order shall be set aside, under this sub-rule unless the opposite party has been served with a notice in this regard". Provided that no order shall be set aside, under this sub-rule unless the opposite party has been served with a notice in this regard". Provided further that the Controller shall, in respect of an application for setting aside an ex parte order or order of dismissal for default received under this sub-rule for the first time, and may, in respect of second or subsequent application, stay all execution proceedings in pursuance or the ex parte order or the order of dismissal for default until, the disposal of the application. ( 7 ) IN Mirza Rasheed ali Safavi v. G. Bhaskar Rao, 1993 (2) An. WR 17, at page 23, it was observed:"the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner relying upon the decision in chiranjilal v. Jai Hind Investments, AIR 1978 Cal. 177 , argued that mere non-service of summons is not enough to find a cause of action for setting aside an ex parte decree. But Rule 8 (3) of the Rent Control Rules empowers the tenant to approach the Rent controller for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction on satisfying the Controller that the summons were not duly served or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the application was called on for hearing. In this case the tenant has satisfactorily established that the summons were not duly served upon him and that the address to which the summons were taken is not his residential address. In the light of the wording in Rule 8 (3) of the Rent Control Rules, it cannot be said that the Rent Controller has no power to set aside the order of eviction even after being satisfied that the summons were not duly served on the tenant as required under law. In the view I have taken above, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the land-lord has played fraud upon the rent Controller in taking out summons to a wrong address". ( 8 ) IN Prarnod Kumar Sharma and others v. Upender Kumar Agarwal, 1995 (1) ALD 527 = 1995 (1) ALT 539 , while dealing with the condonation of delay in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree, it was held that the Court should adopt a liberal approach and the Courts are not expected to decide such matters in a technical manner. In Motaparthi Vasantha devi and others v. P. Padmanabha Sharma and another, 2000 (1) ALT 653 , it was observed that the expression "sufficient cause" in Order 9, Rule 13 C. P. C. should be construed liberally so as to advance the cause of substantial justice and not to punish the parties. ( 9 ) HERE is a case where admittedly there was no personal service on respondents 1 and 2 in the main R. C. No doubt, several aspects had been pointed out to show that the conduct of the parties negatives their bona fides. It is also true that when the docket proceedings are gone through, the matter underwent several adjournments and under inevitable circumstances, the publication had been ordered. Whatever may be the reasons, since there was no personal service and it is a matter concerning with publication made in a Urdu newspaper, in the light of the foregoing discussion and in the interests of justice, I am of the opinion that an opportunity should be given to the revision petitioners to explain whether their application is within limitation or whether there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay as pleaded by them and also the revision petitioners should be given an opportunity by adducing necessary evidence, to explain away the blameworthy conduct pointed out by the landlords-respondents 1 and 2 in the present civil revision petition. In fact, in C. R. P. No. 5444/98, dated 27-7-2001 in a similar fact situation, I had taken the view that when there are several circumstances involving the question of fact, it s always desirable to permit the parties to adduce necessary oral evidence for the purpose of explaining the circumstances. ( 10 ) IN the light of the foregoing discussion, I hereby set aside the order dated 24-10-2000 in R. A. No. 240/98 on the file of chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad confirming the order passed in i. A. No. 483/98 in R. C. No. 473/96 on the file of IV Additional Rent Controller, at hyderabad and remit the matter back to the learned Rent Controller for the purpose of affording opportunity to both the parties to let in evidence relating to their respective contentions. ( 11 ) THE civil revision petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. Each party to bear their own costs.