JUDGMENT B. P. DAS, J. — This revision application is filed by defend¬ant No. 12 in Title Suit No. 59 of 1978 pending before the Civil Judge (S.D), Kendrapara challenging the order passed by the Addl. District Judge,Kendrapara dismissing his Title Appeal No. 38 of 1992 and confirming the order of the trial Court rejecting the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short the ‘C.P.C.’) for setting aside the ex parte order passed against him. 2. The case of the petitioner is that opposite party No. 1 as the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 59 of 1978 for partition along with a prayer to declare that the plaintiff and his adop¬tive mother-defendant No. 2 are not bound by the sale deeds dated 23.9.1974, 8.8.1977 and 4.7.1978 executed by Agani, i.e., the adoptive father of the present opposite party No. 1. Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner himself and his brothers have purchased Ac 0.58 decimals of land by a registered sale deed dated 8.8.1977. According to him, the trial Court in an ex parte decree dated 22.11.1986 held that so far as ‘Ga’ schedule proper¬ties are concerned, the properties which are purchased by defend¬ant Nos. 12 to 17 under different ‘Kabalas’ will be valid for 1/3rd share of deceased Agani and in respect of 2/3rd share of plaintiff and defendant No. 2, the said Kabalas will not be bind¬ing. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had never received the notice in the suit and postal summons with A.D., which was accepted by his brother, was treated to be sufficient and the trial Court proceeded with the suit in absence of the petitioner. The ground taken before the trial Court in support of the application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. was disbelieved by the trial Court. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plea of the present petitioner. i.e., Bishnu Ch. Malla, that since 1959 he was staying at Calcutta with his family and was occasionally coming to his village, and he had no knowledge regarding institution of the suit, and though his other brothers were parties to the suit, they did not inform him re¬garding the suit as he was separated from his brothers, was not acceptable. i.e., Bishnu Ch. Malla, that since 1959 he was staying at Calcutta with his family and was occasionally coming to his village, and he had no knowledge regarding institution of the suit, and though his other brothers were parties to the suit, they did not inform him re¬garding the suit as he was separated from his brothers, was not acceptable. The trial Court also found from the evidence of oppo¬site party No. 1 as well as opposite parties 12 and 13, who are contesting opposite parties in the Misc. Case, to the effect that though the petitioner was serving at Calcutta, he used to come to his village very often because his family members were staying in his village when suit was instituted. The order-sheet of the trial Court dated 12.9.1978 indicates that the plaintiff filed a petition supported by an affidavit praying for issuance of sum¬mons to defendants 12 and 14 under Order 5, Rule 20, C.P.C. but the trial Court on looking into the fact that postal A.D. of summons returned back from defendant Nos. 12 and 14 being ac¬cepted by their brother, held that the service as against the present petitioner was sufficient. As no step was taken on that date and as defendant No. 12 was found absent on call, he was set ex parte along with other defendants. From the aforesaid order of the trial Court, it is found that the present petitioner and his brothers defendants 13 to 17 were living in joint for which the registered summons was accepted by one of the brothers and ac¬cordingly the service on defendant No. 12 was treated to be sufficient. From the aforesaid order of the trial Court, it is found that the present petitioner and his brothers defendants 13 to 17 were living in joint for which the registered summons was accepted by one of the brothers and ac¬cordingly the service on defendant No. 12 was treated to be sufficient. From the order of the trial Court impugned in this case it transpires that the trial Court disbelieved the plea of the present petitioner that he was away at Calcutta with his family in the year 1977 and one of such reasons being that O.P.W. No. 2, the postal peon of the local post office, who is known to the parties, has categorically stated in his evidence that the wife of the petitioner was present when he offered the registered letter to her and on her instruction the same was handed over to defendant No. 17 (opposite party No. 17).That apart, the trial Court further observed that the suit was of the year 1978, the judgment and decree was passed on 22.11.1986 and the petition under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. was filed on 14.7.1987, i.e. after lapse of eight months. Added to this it was also observed that no petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed by the petitioner, praying to condone the delay in filing of the peti¬tion under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the trial Court held that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for his non-appearance in the suit and accordingly dismissed the aforesaid Misc. Case. Hence, this revi¬sion. 3. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petition¬er draws my attention to the order dated 12.9.1978 passed by the trial Court, which discloses that the plaintiff filed a petition supported by an affidavit praying for issue of summons to defend¬ant Nos. Case. Hence, this revi¬sion. 3. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petition¬er draws my attention to the order dated 12.9.1978 passed by the trial Court, which discloses that the plaintiff filed a petition supported by an affidavit praying for issue of summons to defend¬ant Nos. 12 and 14 under Order 5, Rule 20, C.P.C. The said appli¬cation also finds place in the lower Court record, wherein it has been clearly indicated that as defendant No. 12 (present peti¬tioner) was staying outside, it was not possible to serve summons in usual course for which the prayer was made to issue summons under Order 5, Rule 20, C.P.C. The trial Court passed the order without allowing the prayer of the plaintiff and accepted the service as sufficient as the notice issued by registered post was received by the brother of the present petitioner. Admittedly, the petition under Order 5, Rule 20, C.P.C. clearly discloses the fact that the petitioner was staying outside and it was not possible to serve summons in usual course. The mode of service of summons is incorporated under Order 5, Rule 10, C.P.C. which reads as follows : “10. Mode of service—Service of the summons shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed by the Judge or such officer as he appoints in this behalf, and sealed with the seal of the Court.” Order 5, Rule 15, C.P.C. which is relevant for this case is quoted below : “15. Where service may be on an adult member of defendant’s family — Where in any suit the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him at his residence 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 the summons on his behalf, service may be made on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with him. Explanation - A servant is not member of the family within the meaning of this rule.” Thus notice has to be served either personally or on his agent or any adult member of the family of the defendant. Rule 17 of Order 5 prescribes mode of service by affixture when the circumstances as enumerated thereunder would justify. Explanation - A servant is not member of the family within the meaning of this rule.” Thus notice has to be served either personally or on his agent or any adult member of the family of the defendant. Rule 17 of Order 5 prescribes mode of service by affixture when the circumstances as enumerated thereunder would justify. But in any case, even under that Rule the serving officer has to put an endorsement to that effect. Rule 19 of Order 5 makes it mandatory that where a summons is returned under Rule 17, the Court shall, under the circumstances mentioned therein, after being satisfied may hold that the summons has been duly served or order such service as it thinks fit. 4. In the case of Narendra Kishore Das v. Banamali Sahu, reported in A.I.R.1951 Orissa 312, this Court held that it is a well settled principle that a party’s knowledge of the institu¬tion of a suit is not sufficient so long as he is not effectively served with summons of the suit. He may from various circum¬stances or after his own enquiry come to know that a suit has been filed against him, but he is entitled to expect service of summons from Court. 5. In the case of Prafulla Chandra Deo v. Satyanarayan Chandra Deo and another, reported in 1992 (I) O.L.R. 277 this Court following its earlier decision in the case of Narendra Kishore Das (supra) held as follows : “It is thus paramount that even if a defendant might have knowledge of the suit, yet he is within his rights to expect an effective service of summons on his calling upon him to appear in Court and unless such service is made, he may avoid the Court.” 6. So in the present case by no stretch of imagination,it can be said that the summons had ever been served on the peti¬tioner. So far as limitation is concerned, admittedly an applica¬tion under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. had been filed 8 months after the suit was decreed. But once I hold that the summons had not been served on the petitioner, the date of knowledge of the petitioner about the ex parte decree passed in the suit is of consequence. So far as limitation is concerned, admittedly an applica¬tion under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. had been filed 8 months after the suit was decreed. But once I hold that the summons had not been served on the petitioner, the date of knowledge of the petitioner about the ex parte decree passed in the suit is of consequence. The petitioner in his application has stated that he came to know regarding the ex parte decree from P.W.1 that on 13.7.1987 he inspected the record in Court and thereafter on 14.7.1987 he filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C to set aside the ex parte decree. In absence of any cogent materials, the trial Court disbelieved the plea of the petitioner and as a valuable property purchased by him through a registered sale deed is going to be taken away by an ex parte decree, the petitioner in all fairness should be given an opportunity to establish the same by adducing the evidence. Accordingly, the revision is allowed, the ex parte decree is set aside so far as it relates to defendant No. 12, the present petitioner and to the extent of interest of defendant No. 1 in the said property under sale deed dated 8.8.1977, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- and the same be paid to the opposite parties or deposited before the trial Court within a month. Let both parties appear before the trial Court on 2nd December, 2002. If costs are paid within the time stipulated, the trial Court shall proceed with the suit and then conclude the same by the end of January, 2003. if the costs are not paid within the time stipulated, this order shall not operate. Revision allowed.