ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. 3. THIS APPEAL, BY SPECIAL LEAVE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16-92002 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN CIVIL REVISION NO. 4446 OF 2001. IN VIEW OF THE ORDER THAT WE PROPOSE TO PASS, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO RECITE THE ENTIRE FACTS LEADING TO THE FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE SUIT WAS DECREED EX PARTE BY AN ORDER DATED 16-4-1994. THE APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE EX PARTE ORDER HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURTS BELOW. HENCE, THE PRESENT PETITION. THE NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT IS BY WAY OF SUBSTITUTED SERVICE. THE SUBSTITUTED SERVICE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE TRIBUNE AND THE PUNJAB KESARI WHICH HAVE CIRCULATION ONLY IN THE STATE OF PUNJAB. ADMITTEDLY, THE APPELLANT STAYS AT BOMBAY. THE NEWSPAPERS IN WHICH THE NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED BY WAY OF SUBSTITUTED SERVICE, NAMELY, THE TRIBUNE AND THE PUNJAB KESARI HAVE NO CIRCULATION IN BOMBAY. ORDER 5 RULE 20(1-A) CPC ENJOINS THAT IF THE SERVICE OF NOTICE IS BY ADVERTISEMENT IN THE NEWSPAPER, IT SHALL BE IN THE DAILY NEWSPAPER CIRCULATING IN THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS LAST KNOWN TO HAVE ACTUALLY AND VOLUNTARILY RESIDED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED UNDER ORDER 5 RULE 20(1-A) WITH REGARD TO SUBSTITUTED SERVICE HAS BEEN VIOLATED. IN THE PREMISES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SUMMONS UPON THE DEFENDANT WERE EFFECTIVELY SERVED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE EX PARTE DECREE DATED 16-4-1994 IS SET ASIDE. THE TRIAL COURT SHALL TAKE UP THE SUIT TO ITS FILE AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROPER NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. NO COSTS.