ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 3-7-2008 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Simga, District Raipur allowing the application preferred by respondent No.1/defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Actand thereby setting aside the ex parte decree granted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff by the trial Court on 13-9-2004. 3. The indisputable facts are that the plaintiff initially tried to serve the summons of the suit on the defendant/respondent No.1 by showing his address at Simga, however, when the summons was returned unserved with an endorsement that the defendant resides at Raipur, the plaintiff tried to serve the defendant at Raipur without specifying his address and when this summons was also returned unserved for want of proper address, the plaintiff 'loved an application for substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was allowed by the trial Court and notice was issued by publication in a local newspaper. When the defendant/respondent No.1 did not make his appearance before the trial Court on 13-9-2004, an ex parte decree was passed against him. 4. The defendant/respondent No.1, thereafter, entered appearance before the trial Court on 30-3-2006 by moving an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as well as another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for setting aside the ex parte decree. These. two application's have been allowed by the impugned common order by the learned trial Court and the ex parte decree has been set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once having ordered for substituted service, the learned trial/M.J.C. Court could not have gone behind the proprietary of the order directing service of notice by substituted mode and that once notice is published in the newspaper, the service is complete and, thus, it cannot be said that the defendant/respondent No.1 was not served with the notice of the summons. 6. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1 submits that the plaintiff, from the very beginning, was not acting bona fidely, as in spite of being aware of the fact that the defendant is not a resident of Simga but resides at Raipur, his address in the plaint was shown at Simga and when summons was issued to him at Raipur, his address was not at all mentioned. According to him, learned trial Court has dealt with the matter in a detailed and reasoned manner and after being satisfied, it has condoned the delay and set aside the ex parte decree, which cannot be interfered in exercise of powers under Section lIS of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Learned counsel also submits that service of the notice of summons was never effected on the defendant/respondent No.1. 7. Learned trial/M.J.C. Court, while allowing the defendant's application for setting aside the ex parte decree and the application for condonation of delay in moving the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, has observed that the plaintiff did not make any effort to obtain correct and full address of the defendant of his address at Raipur even after being made aware of the fact that the defendant resides at Raipur. The learned trial/M.J.C. Court, thus, impliedly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not made sincere efforts to effect personal service of the notice on the defendant. 8. Learned trial/M.J.C. Court has also observed that parties to the litigation should be allowed to contest the case on merits and they should not be deprived of raising their plea in the suit. The learned Court has accepted the defendant's plea that full and proper efforts should have been made by the plaintiff to serve the defendant personally before seeking for substituted service. The learned trial/M.J.C. Court has also observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case the substituted service cannot be treated as effective service. Though this part of the observation may not be correct yet this Court is satisfied that the order passed by the learned trial/MJ.C. Court is a reasoned order and one thing is clear that the effort made by the plaintiff to serve the defendant personally was not proper' and that he never made any effort to obtain the address of the defendant of his residence at Raipur. 9. 9. Be that as it may, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Bharat .Singh and others Vs. Narender Kumar and others1, has held that within its limited jurisdiction available under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court, in the facts of that case, should not have interfered with the order of trial Court setting aside ex parte decree and that ordinarily a litigant should not be denied the liberty of contesting the case on merits. Further, in G.P.Srivastava Vs. R.K.Raizada and others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again held that the expression "was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing" must be liberally construed and an ex parte decree can be set aside where the defendant approaches Court. within statutory period and nonappearance is not mala fide or intentional. It has also been held that Courts have wide discretion and, thus, the expression must be construed as an elastic expression and no hard and fast guideline can be prescribed. 10. After going through the record, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial/MJ.C. Court has not committed any such error of law or jurisdiction which can be said to be an error whereby the learned trial/MJ.C. Court has illegally exercised the jurisdiction or has acted with material irregularity. 11. The Present is not a fit case for interference under the High Court's limited jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 12. The civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Revision Dismissed.