JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 12.03.1997 passed by the learned trial court allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. in Civil Misc. Case No. 230/1993. 2. The brief facts may be summarised as follows : The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on or about 08.01.1973 against one Goruram, the defendant since deceased, and now represented by the non-petitioners No. 1 to 6. After the filing of the suit, the summons were issued to the defendant Goruram on various occasions for his appearance before the court on 13.01.1973, 30.04.1973, 09.10.1973, 30.01.1974, 12.06.1974 and 17.07.1974 but the defendant could not be served for various reasons as he was not found on the address though his .son and wife who were present refused to accept the summons and on the summons being affixed on the house no person was willing to sign as a witness. Ultimately, the plaintiff moved an application for substituted service by publication and in pursuance thereof the summons were published in the Hindi Daily Dainik Navjyoti, being published from Jaipur for appearance before the trial court in the suit on 05.02.1975. 3. After the publication of the summons in the newspaper date 18.01.1975 for appearance of the defendant before the court on 05.02.1975, the defendant failed to appear before the trial court on the date fixed and as such an order was passed for proceeding ex-parte against the defendant. 4. Immediately, thereafter, the defendant appeared and moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 05.02.1975 which application was allowed and the defendant filed his written statement and the issues were framed and the case was fixed for evidence. The suit proceeded for sometime but on 21.11.1979 the suit came to be dismissed in default on account of non-appearance on the part of the plaintiff. 5. An application was, therefore, filed on 21.02.1979 for restoration of the suit. So far as the restoration application is concerned, efforts were made to serve the defendant on various occasions and neither the defendant could .be served personally nor his counsel Shri Hanuman Prasad, Advocate accepted the summons. The summons were sent to the defendant by registered post which were returned with the endorsement of refusal (Exhibit-A/3) and consequently, on 27.08.1981 the court considered the service as sufficient and after hearing the plaintiff restored the suit vide order dated 08.12.1981. 6. The summons were sent to the defendant by registered post which were returned with the endorsement of refusal (Exhibit-A/3) and consequently, on 27.08.1981 the court considered the service as sufficient and after hearing the plaintiff restored the suit vide order dated 08.12.1981. 6. After restoration of the suit, the notices were again issued to the defendant of the suit. It appears that the said summons which were ordered to be issued were not issued for some reason and the court ordered for service of the summons by registered post on 16.08.1982. The date fixed was 17.09.1982. On the said date, the A/D Receipt did not return and the notices were ordered to be awaited for 25.09.1982. On 25.09.1982 the registered notices returned without being served. 7. The plaintiff realising that the defendant was evading notices looking to the past nature right from the year 1973 and the fact that even previously all efforts to serve the defendant in the suit failed and the members of his family refused tot accept the notices and the notices which were fixed on the address as there was no witness available to testify the affixation and the fact that the defendant was deliberately avoiding the service and, therefore, in the suit also the defendant was served by substituted service by publication of the notice in the Dainik Navjyoti newspaper on 18.01.1975 again applied to 1 the court on 12.10.1982 for being permitted to serve the defendant by substituted service by publication of the notices in the Hindi Daily Newspaper Rashtra Doot being published from Jaipur where the defendant last resided. 8. The application dated 12.10.1982 under Order 5 Rule 20 C.P.C. was allowed and the plaintiff-petitioner was permitted to serve the defendant Goruram by substituted service by publication of the notices in the Hindi Daily Newspaper 'Rashtra Doot' which is published from Jaipur, for his appearance before the court in the suit on 20.11.1982. The notice was duly published and on the newspaper being filed in the court, the learned trial 1 court considered the service as sufficient and since none appeared on behalf of the defendant, an order was passed in the suit for proceeding ex-parte against the defendant Goruram. 9. After the suit was ordered to proceed ex-parte on 20:11.1982 a decree came to be passed against he defendant for eviction on 10.02.1983 1 giving two months time to vacate the premises. 9. After the suit was ordered to proceed ex-parte on 20:11.1982 a decree came to be passed against he defendant for eviction on 10.02.1983 1 giving two months time to vacate the premises. 10. After the aforesaid period of two months elapsed, the decree holder plaintiff who is the petitioner herein filed an execution application and on the said execution application being filed after he period of two months, the Nazir went to the premises on 07.07.1983 for delivering the possession in execution of the decree. 11. The defendant was not present though his son was present and he objected to the delivery of possession and as such the Nazir made a report before the Executing Court regarding the aforesaid obstruction and sought directions for the grant of help by the police in obtaining the possession of the premises. 12. The learned Executing Court accordingly on the report of the Nazir passed an order for obtaining police help and in accordance therewith the possession was taken by the Nazir on 25.07.1983 and the possession was handed over to the decree holder petitioner. It is at this stage that on 26.07.1983 the defendant moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. praying for the setting aside of the ex-parte order dated 20.11.1982 and the ex-parte decree dated 10.02.1983. The averments in he application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. in pars No. 7 is as follows : " 7 & ;g fd foi{kh oknuh us U;k;ky; dks xyr rF;ksa dks crykdkj xyr rkSj ls jk"V~nwr ds vUnj fnukad 24-10-1982 dks lEeu dks izdkf'kr djok;kA izkFkhZ izfroknh jk"V~nwr v[kckj dHkh i<+rk Hkh ugha gS vkSj u gh mudks dksbZ nkos dh tkudkjh gh feyh blfy, izkFkhZ izfroknh U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr ugha gq;s vkSj fnukad 20-11-1982 dks U;k;ky; us izkFkhZ izfroknh xks:jke ds fo:} ,drjQk dk;Zokgh dj nh vkSj eqdnek fnukad 10-2-1983 dks U;k;ky; }kjk fMdzh Qjek fn;k x;kA " 13. The plaintiff filed a reply to the aforesaid averments that the notices were sent to the defendant by registered post which were. returned and thereafter an application for substituted service was filed which was allowed by the court and the notices were published in the Hindi Daily Rashtra Doot which is circulated in the area where the defendant resides and that the defendant had the full knowledge about the proceedings but has deliberately not prepared before the court. returned and thereafter an application for substituted service was filed which was allowed by the court and the notices were published in the Hindi Daily Rashtra Doot which is circulated in the area where the defendant resides and that the defendant had the full knowledge about the proceedings but has deliberately not prepared before the court. In para No. 18 of the reply the plaintiff-petitioner further averred that the defendant had full knowledge about the passing of the decree at least on 07.07.1983 when the Nazir went to the spot to deliver the possession and the members of his family caused obstruction to the delivery of possession which is evident from the report of the Nazir as made to the court. 14. Along with the reply the affidavit of Narayan Singh, husband of the petitioner, who is also the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff has been filed in support of the reply. It was mentioned that the efforts were made to serve the notice to the counsel for the defendant who refused to accept the same, the same were sent by registered post but were returned as the defendant avoided the service and thereafter the notices were published in the newspaper and the service was affected by the substituted service. It was the case of the petitioner in the said affidavit in para No. 7 that the defendant is only interested in delaying the proceedings in the suit and even when the suit was originally filed the defendant kept on avoiding service and was ultimately served by substituted service by publication of notices in the newspaper on 18.01.1975. The relevant portion in the affidavit of Narayan Singh is as follows:- " izfroknh us 'kq: ls gh eqdnes dks yEck dj j[kk gS vkSj tc nkok is'k fd;k rc Hkh izfroknh lEeu ysus ls fNirk jgk vkSj ml le; Hkh izfroknh dh rkehy tfj;s v[kckj djokbZ x;hA " 15. In the reply, it was submitted by the plaintiff-petitioner that immediately after the decree dated 10.02.1983 was passed Narayan Singh, the power of attorney holder of the petitioner went to the disputed premises where Ramesh and Jagdish sons of the petitioner Goruram and the other defendant who was present informed the petitioner about the passing of the decree and thereafter both assured Narayan Singh that they would handover the possession in terms of the decree after contacting their father Goruram. 16. I was also mentioned that along with aforesaid affidavit of Narayan Singh who was power of attorney holder, the affidavit of one Rewati Singh was also filed in support of the reply. 17. Both Goruram and Badri filed their affidavit on 30.08.1983 after the affidavit of Narayan Singh was filed and Badri in his affidavit denied that Narayan Singh contacted him on 10.02.1983 but there was no mention in the said affidavit controverting the fact that Nazir had come on the spot on 07.07.1983 for executing the decree, as alleged by the plaintiff petitioner that the defendants acquired knowledge of the decree on 07.07.1983. Goruram the defendant on the other hand, in his affidavit dated 30.08.1983 in para No. 5 and 6 thereof stated that he does not read the newspaper Rashtra Doot and also that the Nazir did not come on the spot for executing the decree on 07.07.1983. 18. After the above pleadings were taken, the learned trial- court also recorded the evidence of the parties on the points and issues as to whether the defendant had been duly served with the notice. 19. I have perused the impugned order and heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 20. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned trial court has absolutely misconstrued the. whole controversy and has examined the matter not in the light of the fact whether service was effected upon the defendant after 08.12.1981 in the suit after its restoration, but with reference to the evidence which was led by the defendant regarding the service of summons in the proceedings for the restoration application i which was pending from 21.07.1979 to 08.12.1981. The learned counsel has further pointed out that the learned trial court ignored the fact that in the instant case the most significant fact was that the defendant had always been avoiding the service whether it was in the suit, prior to its dismissal for default 5 on 21.11.1979 or during the proceedings for restoration of the suit and lastly after the suit was restored and notices ordered to be issued afresh to the defendant after the order dated 08.12.1981 restoring the suit. 21. 21. It is submitted that right from 1973 to 1975 when the summons were issued to the defendant on 13.01.1973, 31.04.1973, 09.10.1973, 1 30.01.1974, 12.06.1974 and 17.07.1974 the defendant always avoided the service and even though the members of his family were present, as is available in the report of the process server including his wife and sons they refused to accept the summons and no one was prepared to become a witness to the affixation of the notices on the premises in dispute. 22. In the light of these facts, it is submitted that the plaintiff had no option except to serve the defendant by substituted service by publication of the notices in the newspaper Dainik Navjyoti which was ordered by the court, for appearance of the defendant on 05.02.1975. It is submitted that despite the fact that notices were duly published in the newspaper on 18.01.1975, the 2 defendant failed to appear on 05.02.1975 before the trial court and it was only after the trial court ordered the suit to proceed ex-parte against the defendant that the defendant moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order which was allowed by the court and the defendant was permitted to file the written statement. 23. It is submitted that these facts as well as the fact that during the pendency of the restoration proceedings also all efforts to serve the defendant remained futile and the defendant successfully avoided the service including the refusal of the notice sent by registered post that prompted the learned trial court to consider the service as sufficient and allowed the s restoration application vide order dated 08.12.1981. 24. It is submitted that in this back-ground, after the restoration of the suit when the notices sent by the registered post returned unserved and in the light of the back-ground which has been mentioned hereinabove looking to the past conduct of the defendant-tenant it became clear that the defendant-tenant was only interested in delaying the proceedings rather than contesting the same on merits, with the view to remain in possession of the property for as along as possible, hence an application for substituted service was filed on 12.10.1982 for publication of the notice in the daily Hindi newspaper Rashtra Doot being published from and being circulated in Jaipur where the defendant last resided. 25. 25. It is further submitted that it is wrong on the part of the defendant to contend that the defendant Goruram does not read the newspaper or was illiterate. It is contended, that being so, he would not have appeared before the trial court for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 05.02.1975 which was passed after the order for substituted service and the publication of the notices in the newspaper Dainik Navjyoti dated 18.01.1975. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Godha & Ors. v. Union Bank of India, reported in 2008(2) SCC 326 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it cannot be contended by the aggrieved party served by publication of the summons by substituted service that the defendant, as in this case was not a subscriber of the newspaper `Rashtra Doot' and was not reading the said newspaper. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that all that is necessary is that the summons must have been published in a newspaper which is published and circulated in the area where the defendant resides. On the basis of the above, it is contended that the contention which has been raised in para No. 7 of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is without force. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the learned court below has gone into the question regarding sufficiency of service on the application for restoration of the suit, which it is submitted is not at all relevant as the order dated 08.12.1981 restoring the suit is not the subject matter of challenge in any proceeding. 27. It is submitted that the learned court below committed an error in holding that the summons were not duly served in the restoration application since the envelop which was sent by the registered post containing the notices of the restoration application did not contain the copy of the application. It is submitted that the learned court below has, therefore, committed a serious illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction and holding that the service was not sufficient. 28. In reply to the above, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner submitted that in the suit the learned trial court committed a serious error in allowing the application for substituted service vide order dated 24.10.1982. 29. 28. In reply to the above, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner submitted that in the suit the learned trial court committed a serious error in allowing the application for substituted service vide order dated 24.10.1982. 29. It was also contended that service on the Advocate was not sufficient as the counsel has given out that he was not the counsel for the defendant and there were two Advocates with the same name. 30. It was also submitted that Goruram was an illiterate person who did not read the newspaper and only subscribed to 'Rajasthan Patrika' and not the Hindi daily Rashtra Doot. As such, the service by publication cannot be considered sufficient. 31. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the defendant was not duly served in the proceedings for the restoration of the suit and the suit was restored without proper service of the notice upon the defendant. It was also contended that even as per the evidence which was recorded it was not proved that the service was effected upon the defendant either by the process server who brought summons or the notices which were sent by registered post. It is submitted that the Postman was not examined by the plaintiff to substantiate that the defendant had refused to accept the notices. 32. In nutshell, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the learned court below and submitted that the learned court below was justified in setting aside the ex-parte decree and the order dated 20.11.1982. 33. I have considered the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order and the record received from the learned court below. 34. A perusal of the judgment of the learned court below goes to show that while deciding the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 10.02.1983 and the order dated 20.11.1982 directing the suit to proceed ex-parte against the defendant the learned trial court has proceeded on the basis of the facts regarding service of the notice prior to 08.12.1981 and the facts relating to the service of summons which are in respect of the proceedings for the restoration of the suit. The question 1 to be considered here was whether after the order dated 08.12.1981 by which the suit was restored and fresh summons were issued to the defendant the defendant was served or whether the defendant acquired the knowledge about the pendency of the suit on account of the substituted service by 5 publication of the notice in the Hindi Newspaper Rashtra Doot in terms of the order dated 24.10.1982 and the court was justified in passing the orders against the defendant for proceeding ex-parte on 20.11.1982. 35. The learned court below has in its order proceeded as follows:- " bl izdj.k esa Hkh okfnuh us ;g lkfcr ugha fd;k gS fd mlds }kjk cktnk;jh izkFkZuk i= tks izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk mldh udy esa lEeu Fkk jftLV~h ds lkFk Hkst nh FkhA ekuuh; vij ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k dze&1] t;iqj uxj] t;iqj esa lh0,e0,0 uEcj 17@85 vkns'k fnukad 22@7@1986 esa ;g fy[kk gS fd nkos ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd nkok fnukad 21-11-1979 dks [kkfjt gks x;k mlds ckn oknh us nkok iqu% uEcj ij fy;s tkus dh nj[okLr is'k dh ftldks uksfVl tfj;s jftLVMZ Mkd izfroknh ds ikl Hkstk x;k tks fjQwt dk uksV yxkdj izkIr gqvkA bl fyQkQs dks esjs }kjk [kksydj ns[kk x;k mlesa dsoy uksfVl feyk mlesa nj[okLr dh udy 'kkfey ugha FkhA fcuk nj[okLr dh udy ds }kjk uksfVl dkuwuu vi;kZIr FkkA tSlk fd 1984 vkj0,y0MCY;w0 1 ist 1962 esa izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ml uksfVl ds vk/kkj ij izfroknh dh rkehy ekudj nkok jsLVksj fd;k tkuk ;qfDr;qDr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA bl izdkj okfnuh dh vksj ls ;g lkfcr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd mlus izfroknh ds ikl rkehy ds fy;s tks lEeu ;k jftLVMZ Mkd Hksth mlds lkFk nkos dks iqu% uEcj ij fy;s tkus dh nj[okLr dh udy lkFk esa izsf"kr dh ,slh fLFkfr esa mijksDr vkns'k o fofu'p; dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, izfroknh ij dh xbZ rkehy ;qfDr;qDr iz;kZIr izrhr ugha gksrh gSA " 36. After the above discussion, the learned trial court proceeded to examine as to when the defendant acquired the knowledge about the passing of the ex-parte decree and on page No. 16 of the certified copy, the learned trial court in conclusion has held as follows:- mijksDr rkfdZd foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;g li"V gS fd okn dks iqu% uEcj ij fy;s tkus gsrq okfnuh dh vksj ls tks izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk ml izkFkZuk i= ds lEcU/k esa izfroknh ij okfnuh dh vksj ls rkehy ugha djkbZ xbZ uk gh ml izkFkZuk i= dh udy rkehy ds lEeu ds lkFk izfroknh dks Hksth xbZA ftl okn dks iqu% uEcj ij ysus gsrq izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k Fkk tks vne gkftjh esa [kkfjt gks tkus ds i'pkr~ mldks iqu% jsLVksj djus gsrq tks izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k mlesa izfroknhx.k ij lE;d :Ik ls rkehy ugha gqbZ rFkk okn dks iqu% uEcj ij ysus okys izkFkZuk i= ds lEcU/k esa izfroknh ij dksbZ rkehy ugha djkbZ xbZA jk"V~nwr v[kckj esa tks lk;k djok;k x;k mldk Hkh izfroknhx.k dks Kku ugha FkkA mijksDr rkfdZd foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;g lkfcr ugha gS fd izfroknh us iksLVesu ls jftLV~h ysus ls badkj fd;k gksA bl lEcU/k esa okfnuh dh vksj ls iksLVesu dks ijhf{kr ugha djk;k x;k gSA n'kZu flag cuke ?ksoj pUn o vU; Mh,uts jktLFkku ist&443 esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd nhokuh izfdz;k lafgrk&vkns'k 9 fu;e 13 bdrjQk fMdzh dks gVkuk&orZeku ekeyksa esa uksfVl Mkd ( iksLV ) }kjk Hkstk x;k ftlds lEcU/k esa vkjksi gS fd mls ysus ls vLohdkj fd;k x;k&iksLVesu dh lk{; ugha gqbZ&lafgrk esa izko/kku gS fd Mkd }kjk uksfVl Hkh fu;fer jhrh ls Hksts tkus okyh izfdz;k ds lelkef;d Hksts tk ldrs gSa & ;g ,d laxr vk/kkj] jsLiksaMsaV us crk;k gS fd mls lgh <+ax ls rkehy ugha gqbZ&mlds mifLFkr ugha jgus dk vPNk vk/kkj izdV fd;k gS&;g izko/kku vfu;ferrk vkSj vfof/kekU; vf/kdkfjrk dk fu"iknu gqvk gS&,d i{kh; fMdzh jn~n djus dk vkns'k Lohdkj fd;k x;kA vr% iksLVesu dh lk{; ugha gksus ij Hkh ;g lkfcr ugha gS fd izfroknh us iksLVesu ls jftLV~h ysus ls budkj fd;k gksA okfnuh us tks fofu'p; izLrqr fd;s gSa os fofu'p; izdj.k ds rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k vizkFkhZ@oknuh dks dksbZ lgk;rk iznku ugha djrs gSaA okfnuh dh vksj ls ;g lkfcr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd izfroknh ij lEeu dh rkehy lE;d :i ls dj nh xbZ Fkh rFkk ifjoknh okn dh lquokbZ ds fy;s iqdkj gksus ij milatkr gksus ls fdlh iz;kZIr gsrqd ls fuokfjr ugh FkkA mijksDr rkfdZd foospu izkFkhZx.k dk izkFkZuk i= izdj.k ds rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, gtsZ ds lkFk Lohdkj fd;k tkuk U;k; laxr o mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vkns'k izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 9 fu;e 13 /kkjk 151 O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk Lohdkj fd;k tkdj ,d rjQk vkns'k fnukad 20-11-1982 rFkk ,d rjQk fMdzh fnukad 10-2-1983 2]000@& ( nks gtkj ) :Ik;s gtsZ ij ealw[k dh tkrh gSA 37. In view of the above findings recorded by the learned trial court, the learned trial court held that the service was not sufficient and set aside the order dated 20.11.1982 as well as the ex-parte decree dated 10.02.1983. 38. From the above, it becomes clear that the learned trial court has proceeded not whether the service which was effected after 08.12.1981 by publication of notice in the Hindi Daily Hashtra Doot was sufficient, as was contended by the defendant in his application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. in paragraph 7 of the application which has been quoted earlier but has examined the matter in the light of he facts which were not at all relevant as to whether the defendant was properly served in the proceeded in the restoration of the suit prior to the passing of the order dated 08.12.1981. It may be stated here that the order dated 08.12.1981 is not the subject matter of adjudication or challenge or for that matter, the order by which the service was considered sufficient in the proceedings in the restoration of the suit i.e. on 27.08.1981. Thus, I am of the view that the learned trial court has misdirected itself to the issue which was involved as to whether the defendant was served in accordance with the law and the order dated 20.11.1982 directing ex-parte proceedings against the defendant was rightly passed or that the ex-parte decree dated 10.02.1983 deserves to be set aside on that account and that the defendant had no knowledge about the pendency of the suit against him as he alleged that he was illiterate and does not subscribe to the Hindi newspaper Rashtra Doot in which the summons were published, as alleged in the application under Order.9 Rule 13 C.P.C. 39. In the instant case, the case as originally set up by the defendant in the application in so far as the service by publication of the notice in the Rashtra Doot Hindi Daily for his appearance before the court on 20.11.1982 is concerned, the submission is, as has been quoted hereinabove from para No. 7 of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. that the defendant does not subscribe to the Hindi Newspaper Rashtra Doot and on that account he did not read the notices that was published in the said newspaper and could not appear before the court on 20.11.1982 resulting in the ex-parte order being passed against him on 20.11.1982 and the subsequent ex-parte decree dated 10.02.1983. On that simple question the court was required to decide whether or not the above plea taken by the defendant was sufficient for setting aside the ex-parte decree and the ex-parte order dated 20.11.1982. 40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in case of Sunil Poddar and Others v. Union Bank of India, reported in 2008(2) SCC 326 has in para No. 16 of the judgment categorically held as follows : "It cannot be argued successfully that the appellants were not the subscribes of the said newspaper and were not reading Navbharat Times Hindi Edition, but even otherwise, such contention is wholly irrelevant. As to bills said to have been produced from the newspaper agent, to us, both the Tribunals were right in observing that such a bill can be obtained at any time and no implicit reliance can be placed on that evidence. It is immaterial whether appellants were subscribers of the aid newspaper and whether they were reading it. Once a summons is published in a newspaper having wide circulation in the locality, it does not lie in the mouth of the person sought to be served that he was not aware of such publication as he was not reading the said newspaper. That ground also, therefore, does not impress us and was rightly rejected by the Tribunals." 41. Once a summons is published in a newspaper having wide circulation in the locality, it does not lie in the mouth of the person sought to be served that he was not aware of such publication as he was not reading the said newspaper. That ground also, therefore, does not impress us and was rightly rejected by the Tribunals." 41. In view of the above authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contention which was put forward by the defendant in his application in para No. 7 relating to the service by publication (substituted service) not having been effected upon the defendant-respondent herein as he did not subscribe to the Hindi Newspaper Rashtra Doot is of no significance. Learned court below has, therefore, completely misdirected itself and has committed a jurisdictional illegality while deciding the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. by adverting to the questions of facts not germane to the issue and hence, the impugned order, in my opinion, is liable to be set aside. 42. Even otherwise, the conduct of the defendant, in the instant case, as would be evident from the facts which have been narrated hereinabove is very plain that the defendant was only interested in avoiding the service and dealing the proceedings in the suit. The suit was filed in the year 1973 and though the summons were sent several times on the address of the defendant, the defendant avoided the service and even the members of the family including his wife and son who have been substituted in place of the deceased defendant Goruram did not accept the summons and the affixation of the summons on the house was not allowed to be witnessed by them, as has been reported by the Process Server. That resulted in the plaintiff, to file an application for substituted service by way of publication of summons which was allowed. Initially also in the suit the defendant Goruram was served by substituted service by publication of notices in the Hindi Daily Dainik Navjyoti published on 18.01.1975 for his appearance before the court on 05.02.1975 and yet again after the restoration of the suit vide order dated 08.12.1981 service could be affected upon the defendant only by publication of summons in Rashtra Doot Hindi Daily for appearance of the defendant on 20.11.1982. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it canto be said that the plaintiff with a view to gain any unfair advantage over the defendant proceeded for substituted service when the facts of the instant case speak otherwise. 43. There is also the evidence of Narayan Singh that he informed the defendant about the passing of the ex-parte decree dated 10.02.1983 and yet again there is material on record by way of report of the Nazir during the execution proceedings dated 07.07.1983 that he went on the spot to obtain the possession but was obstructed by the members of the family of the defendant Goruram, to the delivery of the possession. Even these facts which are matter of record in the file of the executing court and which have been proved as Exhibit A-5 have been denied by the defendant. Thus, the testionary of the non-petitioners in this case is far from reliable as they have been tried to deny the facts recorded in the proceedings by the executing court by way of report of the Nazir of the events on 07.07.1983. 44. Though, the learned counsel for the parties placed reliance on several decisions either way but since the controversy is a limited one in the light of the case set up in the pleadings in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.PC., quoted hereinabove, I am not inclined to go into all those questions as they do not relate to the point into controversy as to whether service was affected upon the defendant in the restoration proceedings and passing of the order dated 08.12.1981 was justified. The question is required to be looked into the light of the pleadings contained in the application filed by the defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. that as alleged by the defendant-tenant that he did not subscribe to the Hindi Daily Rashtra Doot and so he did not acquire knowledge of the suit. This has been ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be of no consequence and all that has to be seen is whether the summons were served in a newspaper having circulation in the area where the defendant last resided. Even as per address given in the affidavits the defendant resides at Jaipur where the newspaper was published and circulated. Hence, the service was considered as sufficient. 45. Even as per address given in the affidavits the defendant resides at Jaipur where the newspaper was published and circulated. Hence, the service was considered as sufficient. 45. The substituted service by publication having been made in the newspaper on 24.10.1982, there was sufficient time for the defendant to have appeared before the trial court on 20.11.1982 in response to the aforesaid summons. 46. Thus both the texts laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Poddar's case come out clear in the facts of this case. 47. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that there was a discrepancy in the summons published in the Hindi Daily Rashtra Doot on 29.10.1982 inasmuch as the name of the defendant not correctly printed. It is submitted that the name printed is not Goruram but Bhoruram. 48. So far as the above contention is concerned, I have perused the newspaper (Exhibit A/4) and I find that there is no discrepancy in the printing inasmuch as the summons which have been published in the Devanagari script, the name Goruram is correctly spelt. 49. In view of the above, there is no force in the above contention and the same deserves to be dismissed. 50. The next submission of learned counsel for the respondent was that the revision petition deserves to be dismissed as the same has been filed by the power of attorney holder Narain Singh who is not competent to file the same as he has no authority under the power of attorney given by the petitioner Smt. Uchchav Kanwar to file a revision petition and that the power of attorney which was given was only in respect of permitting Narain Singh to depose in the court on behalf of the plaintiff Smt. Uchchav Kanwar. 51. So far as the above contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is concerned, the power of attorney is available on the record of the revision petition. The power of attorney dated 31.05.1988 executed by the plaintiff Smt. Uchchav Kanwar in favour of Shri Narain Singh clearly provides in para No. 3 that Shri Narain Singh, her power of attorney holder would be competent and is authorised to file the plaint, written statement, execution, appeal, application, review, revision, restoration and take such legal action, as is necessary in that behalf. 52. In view of the above, the aforesaid contention deserves to be rejected. 52. In view of the above, the aforesaid contention deserves to be rejected. The power of attorney to which the learned respondent has referred is Exhibit 1/A-7 executed in the year 1995 by the petitioner authorising the power of attorney holder to depose on her behalf in proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. which is of no avail. 53. In view of the above, the contention has no force and is hereby rejected. 54. In the facts and circumstances, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned trial court dated 12.03.1997 is set aside and the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. by the defendant dated 26.07.1983 is dismissed.Revision allowed. *******