JUDGMENT This Misc. Appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 8.4.2000 passed by First Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Misc. Civil Case No. 18/99. Shortly stated the facts are: The respondent filed a suit No. 3B/1998 for recovery of Rs. 3,37,292/against the appellant company. As per order sheet of the trial Court dated 10.12.1998, the trial Court ordered to issue notice of suit to the appellant company at its Head Office, Hyderabad by registered A.D. as well as by ordinary post and fixed the case for filing written statement on 18.1.1999. On 18.1.1999 on the basis of acknow ledgement of the postal department about receipt of notice, as none appeared for the appellant, the trial Court proceeded ex parte against the appellant. On 29.1.1999 ex parte decree was passed. On 22.4.1999, the appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte decree. It was stated in the application that the appellant never received any notice by registered post nor received any summons as sent by the trial Court. In addition it was submitted that the appellant was having business relationship with the respondent till 1997. The respondent raised a false claim against the appellant and sent a legal notice dated 8.7.1998. The appellant from the reliable sources and business relations with another party at Bhopal has come to know that pertaining to the notice dated 8.7.1998 the respondent had filed some Civil Suit before the Court at Bhopal. To enquire this the appellant sent his Legal Officer S.K. Gowes to Bhopal on 1st March 1999. There was holiday for three days due to Holi festival as such he returned to Hyderabad on 3rd March 1999. On 20.4.1999 Shri S.K. Gowes was again sent to Bhopal by the appellant to enquire about any further action of the respondent pertaining to his notice dated 8.7.1998. On 21.4.1999 on coming to Bhopal he contacted Shri J.P. Jat, Advocate to enquire as to whether any suit has been filed in consequence of the notice sent by the respondent. On enquiry it was found that the respondent had filed a civil suit bearing Suit No.3 B/98 on 23.11.1998 in the Court of Ist Additional District Judge, Bhopal against the appellant. On enquiry it was found that the respondent had filed a civil suit bearing Suit No.3 B/98 on 23.11.1998 in the Court of Ist Additional District Judge, Bhopal against the appellant. On 21.4.1999 itself an application for inspection of case file was submitted and on inspection and perusal of the case file it has been revealed that an ex parte judgment and decree has been passed against the appellant on 29.1.1999. It was futher submitted that the acknowlegement card does not bear any seal of postal department either of Madhya Pradesh or Andhra Pradesh region. The said acknowledgement card does not bear any registry number over it. The said acknowledgement receipt bears the seal in the name of appellant's office but the said seal as well as signature are forged one and the same does not belong to appellant company. It was accordingly prayed that on the basis of such acknowledgement the presumption of service of summons on appellant is not correct. It was also stated that there is no receipt or proof of sending of the registered notice in the record of the case file. It was thus stated that the respondent had managed a false acknowledgemel1t card by using his influence in order to get ex parte order against the appellant. The application was supported by affidavit of S.K. Gowes, Officer (Legal) of appellant Company. In reply the respondent denied the contention of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant deliberately remained absent in the suit and on the basis of acknowledgement of service of notice on the appellant the trial Court has rightly proceeded ex parte against it. However, the reply was not supported by affidavit of the respondent. Heard Shri Naman Nagrath, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.D. Hundikar, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that the appellant was not served with the notice of suit. In the absence of any postal receipt about sending of the registry by post no presumption can be drawn against the appellant about the service of it. The acknowledgement card does not bear any seal either of Bhopal Post Office or of Hyderabad Post Office. In the absence of any postal receipt about sending of the registry by post no presumption can be drawn against the appellant about the service of it. The acknowledgement card does not bear any seal either of Bhopal Post Office or of Hyderabad Post Office. Unless it is established that the registered notice was actually sent, it cannot be presumed on the basis of such acknowledgement which is blank so far as postal seal is concerned that the appellant has received it. In support of his submission he has relied upon a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Basant Singh and another v. Roman Catholic Mission (AIR SCW 2002: 4171). On the other hand, Shri R.D. Hundikar, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and has submitted that the appellant was duly served as is evident from acknowledgement which bears seal of appellant company. He further submitted that the appellant after getting knowledge of ex parte decree has not approached the Court promptly and in view of the delay the trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the appellant. In order to decide the controversy, the sole question which requires consideration is whether the alleged registered notice with acknowledgement card was actually sent or not. On perusal of the order sheet I find that though notice was ordered to be issued by registered post, there is no postal receipt on record. The absence of postal receipt about dispatch-sending of registered A.D. notice coupled with the fact that there is no seal of the postal department on the acknowledgement card strengthens the submission of the appellant that the registered post was never actually sent. Thus, I am of the view that the trial Court has committed error in holding that the registered A.D. notice was sent and served on the appellant. The presumption of service of notice by registered post comes only when there is sufficient evidence about issuance/sending of the registered post. The approach the trial Court that the appellant's application for setting aside the ex parte order was barred by limitation is also not correct. It has been categorically stated by the appellant that from some reliable sources it came to his knowledge that the respondent had filed a Civil Suit before the Court at Bhopal. On this on 1.3.1999 they sent their legal officer. It has been categorically stated by the appellant that from some reliable sources it came to his knowledge that the respondent had filed a Civil Suit before the Court at Bhopal. On this on 1.3.1999 they sent their legal officer. Due to continuous holidays for three days he could not enquire and returned to Hyderabad on 3.3.1999. Again on 20.4.1999 he came to Bhopal, on enquiry, through J.P. Jat, Advocate for the first time on 21.4.1999, he came to know that an ex parte judgment and decree has been passed against the appellant. Immediately next day on 22.4.1999, the appellant filed application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree. Thus, from the date of know ledge of passing of the ex parte judgment and decree there is absolutely no delay. The application has been filed promptly and, therefore, the order of the trial Court on this count is also not sustainable. In view of the aforesaid findings, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has duly made out a case for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree. Accordingly, this appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of the trial Court is set aside and the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. Consequently, the ex parte judgment and decee against the appellant is set aside. The parties are directed to appear through their counsel before the trial Court on 23.8.2004. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law. If the appellant has deposited the decreetal amount as directed by this Court on 8.8.2002, the same be returned to the appellant subject to filing· an undertaking before the trial Court to satisfy the decree if passed against it by the trial Court. The appeal is allowed with cost. Counsel fee as per schedule.