Judgment :- Revision petitioners 1 and 2 filed the suit against the respondent for cancellation of the sale deed bearing No.2780/2000 dated 24.10.2000 executed in favour of the respondent and for other relief’s. After the suit was decreed ex parte, respondent filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree. By the order under revision, the learned trial Judge allowed the said petition. Hence, this revision by the plaintiffs in the trial Court. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for revision petitioners is that the trial Court without keeping in view the provisions of Order V Rule 20 and Order V Rule 19-A (2) CPC and the ratio in BASANT SINGH v. ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION (AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 3557) erroneously held that there was no proper service of summons on the respondent, because the trial Court failed to keep in view the fact that it ordered service of notice through registered post, and since summons were sent by registered post also, the court should have drawn an inference that the summons were duly served on the addressee by virtue of the provisions contained in Order V Rule 19-A(2) CPC read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. It is his contention that since the revision petitioners did not seek publication of the notice in the news paper 'Pledge' and it is the Court that ordered publication of notice in the news paper 'Pledge', the trial Court erred in observing that inasmuch as the publication was made in the news paper 'Pledge' which does not have wide circulation, it cannot be said to be a due service and contended that the consequences for the act done by the Court cannot be visited on the revision petitioners, who filed a petition for service of notice through publication in a paper, without naming the paper in which the publication has to be made and contended that inasmuch as the respondent, who took a plea that the revision petitioners managed the Bailiff to get a false endorsement of return being made, failed to adduce evidence in support of that contention, and in any event since it is the Process Server but not a bailiff that was entrusted with the task of serving summons and since there is no evidence on record to show that the revision petitioners 'managed' the Bailiff or the Process Server to get a false endorsement of return made on the summons, the trial Court was in error in observing that the summons were not duly served on the respondent. It is his contention that since CPC prescribes paper publication as one of the modes of service of summons, when paper publication is made, it should be deemed that there is valid service of summons and since the petition is not filed within 30 days from the date of the ex parte decree, the trial Court ought to have held that the petition is barred by time and contended that since the revision petitioners, subsequent to the passing of the decree, had, after obtaining delivery of possession of the property, inducted third parties into possession of the suit property they would face problems from the persons whom they had inducted into possession and so the order under revision is liable to be set aside. 3. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent is that though the proceeding sheet of the trial Court shows that summons were ordered only once, in his affidavit filed in support of the petition filed under Order V Rule 20 CPC, sworn to by the counsel for revision petitioners in the trial Court, the counsel for the revision petitioners alleged that though summons were ordered several times they were not served on the respondent and so notice may be ordered through publication, and that fact itself shows that respondent played fraud on the court and since the evidence of R.W.2, the Process Server, clearly establishes that he did not take steps for proper service of summons on the respondent, the trial Court rightly held that there was no proper service of summons on the respondent and contended that though the respondent and his wife were living in the same address, the revision petitioners, by playing fraud on the Court, and by managing the Process Server, obtained a false return on the summons and since notice by publication in a news paper, which has no wide circulation, is not proper service and since the respondent immediately after coming to know about the ex parte decree filed the petition, it cannot be said that the petition is barred by time. 4. The proceeding sheet of the trial Court in the suit reads 05.01.2004 - 'Suit numbered. Issue summons to defendant 09.02.2004'; 09.02.2004 - 'Defendant called absent. Await SS call on 09.04.2004'; 09.04.2004 - 'Defendant called absent. Await SS call on 26.08.2004'; 26.08.2004 - 'P.O.L. 7.10.2004. This O.S.No. 373/2004 transferred to VIII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, dated 16.08.2004. Both parties are directed to appear before the said Court on 06.12.2004'; 06.12.2004 - 'defendant not present issue F/S to defendant 24.01.2005.'; 24.01.2005 - 'process paid (petition filed 148 allowed) process paid FS through court and R.P. 28.2.2005'; 28.2.2005 (report process server) - 'SS through court of defendant returned that door locked. Defendant is called absent. R.P. Summons not returned. Await report R.P. SS 16.3.2005'; 16.3.2005 - 'R.P. notice not returned. Defendant is called absent. TE for steps for substituted service 31.03.2005'; 31.03.2005 - 'I.A. u/o V R 20 CPC petition allowed. Issued substitute service SS to the defendant by publication 'PLEDGE' daily Hyderabad for publication call on 20.04.2005'; 20.04.2005 - 'Publication filed. Defendant called absent set exparte. Await report R.P. SS 16.3.2005'; 16.3.2005 - 'R.P. notice not returned. Defendant is called absent. TE for steps for substituted service 31.03.2005'; 31.03.2005 - 'I.A. u/o V R 20 CPC petition allowed. Issued substitute service SS to the defendant by publication 'PLEDGE' daily Hyderabad for publication call on 20.04.2005'; 20.04.2005 - 'Publication filed. Defendant called absent set exparte. T/E for plaintiff evidence 09.06.2005'; 09.06.2005 -'PNR call on 16.06.2005 finally; on 16.06.2005 the suit was decreed ex parte after examining P.W.1 and marking Exs.A.1 to A.3. 5. From the proceedings extracted above it is seen that summons was ordered for the first time on 05.01.2004 and for the second time on 06.12.2004. In pursuance of that order revision petitioners deposited process with a petition under Section 148 CPC on 24.01.2005 whereupon process through Court and registered post was ordered, returnable on or before 28.02.2005. Since notices were not returned served, service through publication in paper was ordered and respondent was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed. After coming to know about the said ex parte decree, respondent filed the petitioner under Rule 13 of Order IX CPC to set aside the ex parte decree. 6. In support of his case respondent examined himself as P.W.1 but no documentary evidence was adduced on his behalf. On behalf of the revision petitioners, four witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 to 4 and Ex.B.1 was marked. Ex.X.1 was marked from Court record. Respondent as P.W.1 spoke about his case. Nothing useful was elicited during his cross-examination. The evidence of R.W.1, the first revision petitioners, is not much of help to decide the question of proper service of summons because it is not her case that she accompanied the Process Server for service of summons on the respondent. 7. The evidence of R.W.2, the Process Server, is that when he went to the address given in the summons for service of summons, he found the door locked and so he returned the summons on the same day along with his Ex.X.1 report. 7. The evidence of R.W.2, the Process Server, is that when he went to the address given in the summons for service of summons, he found the door locked and so he returned the summons on the same day along with his Ex.X.1 report. During cross-examination he stated that nobody accompanied him and that he himself identified the premises and that there was no separate lock with handle fixed to the door and as nobody opened door in response to his ringing the call bell, he, under the impression that the door was locked, returned the process with a report that the door was locked, and admitted that no one can say if the door was locked by merely looking at it and denied the suggestion that he did not visit the flat and created Ex.X.1 endorsement. 8. The evidence of R.W.3, husband of the 1st revision petitioners, also is of no help to decide this petition because it is not his case that he accompanied R.W.2 when he went to serve the summons on the respondent. 9. R.W.4 admitted that he did not accompany the Process Server or the Amin when they went to serve the summons on the respondent and that as R.W.2 informed him that suit summons were served on the respondent, he came to know that summons were not served on the respondent. 10. 9. R.W.4 admitted that he did not accompany the Process Server or the Amin when they went to serve the summons on the respondent and that as R.W.2 informed him that suit summons were served on the respondent, he came to know that summons were not served on the respondent. 10. From the evidence of R.W.2 it is clear that he did not follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 17 of Order V CPC, which reads: "Procedure when defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found-Where the defendant or his agent or such other person as aforesaid refuses to sign the acknowledgement, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant who is absent from his residence at the time when service 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 there is no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made, and serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, and shall then return the original to the Court from which it was issued, with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he id so, and the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed." Ex.X.1 return prepared by R.W.2, which in fact is not in proper form, as it is not in accordance with Form No.11 in Part B of the First Schedule to CPC prescribed under Rule 18 of Order V CPC reads: "I, A. Vithalaiah, PS, state on oath as follows. I went to given address on 24.02.2005. The defendant premises door found locked hence summons unserved. Hence summons returned un served." I wonder why the Central Nazar accepted such return of summons by R.W.2, and whey he did not instruct R.W.2 to follow the procedure prescribed of affixing a copy of the summons on the door and obtain the signature of the identifying witnesses. The defendant premises door found locked hence summons unserved. Hence summons returned un served." I wonder why the Central Nazar accepted such return of summons by R.W.2, and whey he did not instruct R.W.2 to follow the procedure prescribed of affixing a copy of the summons on the door and obtain the signature of the identifying witnesses. In view of the evidence of R.W.2 and Ex.X.1, the possibility of R.W.2 creating Ex.X.1 return, without actually visiting the address mentioned in the summons, cannot be ruled out. 11. Rule 19-A of Order V CPC, strongly relied on by the learned counsel for revision petitioners with reference to summons sent by registered post, was omitted by CPC Amendment Act, 1999, which came into force on 01.07.2002. Now it is Rule 9 of Order V CPC, as amended by 1999 and 2002 Amendment Acts to CPC that lays down the procedure for service of summons in cases where the defendant resides within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted. Sub-rule 5 of Rule 9 of Order V CPC reads. "When an acknowledgement or any other receipt purporting to be signed by the defendant or his agent is received by the Court or postal article containing the summons is received back by the court with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee or by any person authorized by the courier service to the effect that the defendant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the postal article containing the summons or had refused to accept the summons by any other means specified in sub-rule (3) when tendered or transmitted to him, the Court issuing the summons shall declare that the summons had been duly served on the defendant: Provided that where the summons was properly addressed, pre-paid and duly sent by registered post acknowledgement due, the declaration referred to in this sub-rule shall be made notwithstanding the fact that the acknowledgement having been lost or mislaid, or for any other reason, has not been received by the Court within thirty days from the date of issue of summons." So, it is clear that Rule 9(5) of Order V CPC substituting Rule 19-A (2) was considered in Basant Singh case (1 supra). 12. 12. From a reading of Rule 9(5) of Order V CPC it is clear that the condition precedent for raising a presumption of the summons being served, is the summons being sent to proper address of the defendant by registered post with acknowledgement due. In this case there is no evidence on record to show the address to which the summons were sent by registered post, because neither the postal receipt nor form of deposit of process containing the address to which the summons are to be sent by registered post, are marked as exhibits. So, there is no evidence on record to show that summons, by registered post, were presented in court and that it was dispatched by registered post to the correct address of the respondent. Since there is nothing on record to show that summons by registered post were in fact sent to the address or the correct address of the respondent by registered post with acknowledgement due, question of drawing a presumption that the respondent was served with summons through registered post under Rule 9(5) of Order V CPC does not arise and so the ratio in Basant Singh case (1 supra) does not apply to the facts of this case. 13. It is true that the affidavit filed in support of the petition filed under Order V Rule 20 CPC does not mention the name of the news paper in which the publication has to be made. So, it is clear that it is the Court that ordered service of notice to respondent by publication in 'Pledge' news paper. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent, the averment in the affidavit filed in support of the petition under Rule 20 of Order V CPC, sworn to by the counsel for revision petitioners in the trial Court, that summons were sent to the respondent several times, is not a correct statement of fact because summons were ordered only twice and revision petitioners seem to have deposited process through Court only once and for the reasons mentioned above, R.W.2 seems to have returned the process without following the procedure prescribed. As stated earlier there is nothing on record to show that summons by registered post were in fact sent and that they were sent to the correct address of the respondent. 14. As stated earlier there is nothing on record to show that summons by registered post were in fact sent and that they were sent to the correct address of the respondent. 14. Be that as it may, the Court allowed the said petition and ordered publication in 'Pledge' news paper. After the revision petitioners made the publication, the respondent was set ex parte and the suit was decreed ex parte. So, I am not able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for revision petitioners that the petition is barred by time because as per Article 123 of the Limitation Act, limitation for filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree is 30 days from the date of the decree if summons were duly served, and where the summons or notice was not duly served, 'when the applicant had knowledge of the decree'. Publication of summons in a news paper cannot be said to be due service in view of the ratio in SHANMUKHI v. VENKATA RAMI REDDY (AIR 1957 AP 1 = 1956 ANWR 158 FB). Since the respondent filed the application to set aside the ex parte decree within 30 days of the date of knowledge it cannot be said that it is barred by time. 15. For the above mentioned reasons, I find no merits in the revision petition and hence the same is dismissed with costs. 16. Learned counsel for petitioner states that he wants to prefer an appeal against this order and seeks an order of status-quo for two months. Both parties are directed to main status-quo as on today in respect of the plaint schedule property till 23-04-2007 from today.