JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant Civil Revision Petition, stands, directed against the disaffirmative orders pronounced by the learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P., upon, an application bearing CMP No. 309-S/6 of 2013, cast under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, where through, the petitioner herein, sought condonation of delay, in, instituting an appeal, against, the exprate judgment and decree, pronounced by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla, upon, Civil Suit No. 95/1 of 2010/08, titled as Bala Dutt vs. Kamal Jeet Kaur and another. 2. The learned trial Court on 10.03.2009, made a conclusion (a) that despite valid service being effectuated, through affixation, in the afore civil suit, upon, the petitioner herein/defendant No.1, and, yet hers omitting to record her appearance therebefore either in person or through any authorised counsel, hence, hers being enjoined, to, face an order, for hers being proceeded against ex-parte. She, thereafter pronounced ex-parte decree for mandatory injunction against defendant No.1/petitioner herein, was, strived to be assailed before the learned First Appellate Court, (b) yet only after expiry of the prescribed period of time for institution of an appeal therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, (c) obviously, the, belated concert of the aggrieved defendant/petitioner herein, enjoined, an, adjudication being made, upon, an application, cast under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as, stood appended with the memorandum of appeal, instituted, before the learned First Appellate Court, against the afore rendered ex-parte judgment and decree. The petitioner herein/defendant No.1, was, enjoined to therein display good, and, sufficient cause, constraining her, to, belatedly institute, the apposite appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, where before whom, a challenge was cast, vis-a-vis, the ex-parte judgment and decree. 3. An averment is cast in the application, cast under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, (a) that the summons were not served upon her in accordance with law, (b) and, obviously she intended to contend that the orders made, on 10.03.2009, by the learned trial Court, qua, valid service through affixation being caused, upon, her rather being legally infirm. Furthermore, she averred in the application, that, in the year 2009, she not residing at Shimla, and, rather was residing at Delhi, in connection with the treatment of her ailing daughter, (c) and, she thereafter pleaded that she acquired knowledge, vis-a-vis, the ex-parte judgment, and, decree, on 28.05.2013, (d) and, upon her within 30 days thereafter hence instituting, the apposite civil appeal against the ex-parte judgment, and, decree, hence renders her explanation, for, the apposite inordinate delay, being tangible, (e) and, she prayed that delay be condoned, and, thereafter, the, civil appeal reared against the ex-parte judgment and decree, be registered, in, the apposite register of civil appeals. 4. The petitioner herein, while stepping into the witness box, made, a testification bearing concurrence with the afore averments, cast, in the application at hand, (i) and, hence testified, that, the requisite delay being neither intentional, nor deliberate, rather it standing sufficiently explained, and, also necessitating its condonation. In her cross-examination, conducted by the learned counsel for the respondent(s), an affirmative suggestion was put to her, qua, the requisite intimation qua the rendition of the ex-parte decree, and, judgment, rather being conveyed to her by her neighbour, one Bala Nand Mehta, on 28.05.2013, whereto, an answer in the affirmative was rendered by her. 5. The respondent Bala Nand Sharma (now deceased) instituted reply to the application at hand, and, contended that the averments made in the application at hand, did not , convey any sufficient, and, good cause, and, rather the apposite inordinate delay, was both deliberate or intentional, and, also through, an, affidavit borne in Ex.RW1/A, tendered, during, the course of his examination-in-chief, he made disclosures therein, hence, bearing concurrence therewith. In his cross-examination, he has disclosed that in the months of March and April, 2009, in months and year whereof, the learned trial Court, for, want of appearance there before of the petitioner, in person or through her authorised counsel, despite valid service being caused upon her through affixation, hence directed hers being proceeded against ex-parte. 6. In his cross-examination, he has disclosed that in the months of March and April, 2009, in months and year whereof, the learned trial Court, for, want of appearance there before of the petitioner, in person or through her authorised counsel, despite valid service being caused upon her through affixation, hence directed hers being proceeded against ex-parte. 6. The learned District Judge, while declining the espoused relief to the petitioner, had, disbelieved all the afore averments, cast in the afore application, and, had emphasized, upon, the factum that, despite, the petitioner herein, in an earlier case, mentioning her address, as, resident of Erin Villa Cart Road, Shimla-3, (a) and, whereat, she was served, and, also thereafter hers rendering her statement before the Court concerned, (b) hence, concluded that with the afore address being similar, to the one mentioned, in the summons where through service purportedly through affixation, was, effectuated upon her, (c) rather being her correct address, and, further concluded that, the, order made, on 10th March, 2009, rather being a valid order. It further disbelieved, an, averment qua the petitioner herein, especially for want of tangible, and, cogent evidence qua hers in the year, 2009, not, residing in Shimla, rather hers residing in Dely, in connection with the treatment of her ailing daughter. All the afore reasons, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, are weak and frail, and, merit interference. 7. Even though, in the earlier motion, the application/petitioner herein, had, mentioned her address bearing, hence, similarity with the address mentioned in the extant summons, (a) and, whereon she stood earlier personally served, in the ordinary mode, (b) yet in the extant case, the apposite summons issued, for hers being personally served thereunder, through ordinary mode, were not, palpably served personally upon her, rather the extant summons were served, upon, her through affixation. Consequently, it has to be determined, from the extant summons, whether the process server concerned, while causing service through affixation, upon her, by pasting the extant summons, on the face of the outer door of her premises, had proceeded, to, revere the mandate encapsulated in Order 5, Rule 17 CPC, provisions whereof, stand extracted hereinafter:- "17 Procedure when defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot he 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, the 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 did 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." (c) Provisions whereof, through authorise the process server, to, initially ensure personal service being effectuated, upon, the addressee or his/her authorised agent, and, hence, on their refusal, to, the sign the acknowledgement, or (d) upon his making all due, and, reasonable diligence, his rather hence discovering, that, the addressee is absent from his/her resident, at the time contemporaneous, to, his concerting, to, effectuate personal service upon her/him through ordinary mode, (e) and, further upon there being no evident likelihood of his/her being found within a reasonable time, at the relevant abode, (f) and, nor she/he hence athorising any agent to accept service of summons on his/her behalf, to hence, affix or paste the summons on the face, of the outer door of the premises, where, the addressee ordinarily resides. The afore authorization to affix the summons, on the face, of the outer door of the premises, ordinarily occupied by the addressee, is subject also to his begetting satiation, of all, the statutorily enjoined parameters, as, encapsulated in the provisions, borne in Order 5, Rule 17 of the CPC. 8. In aftermath, the relevant document, for determining, whether, hence evident satiation is begotten, visa-vis, all the afore enjoined parameters, is, comprised in the apposite summons. On the reverse of the apposite summons, an endorsement is made, by the process server concerned, qua his pasting them, on the face of the outer door of the relevant premises, and, only after his making the relevant abortive discoveries, for ensuring, hence the summons being effectuated personally, upon, her through ordinary mode, (a) and, also after, his, hence discovering hers, not, being present at the given address, given his rather discovering that the outer door, of, the premises are locked. The afore affixation of summons, on the face of the outer door of the premises of the petitioner herein, is, in pursuance to the orders pronounced, on 30.12.2018, by the learned Civil Judge concerned. However, in transgression of the mandate, of, the further provisions, borne in Order 5 Rule 17 of the CPC, wherein, he was, upon, his striving to cause service through affixation, of the apposite summons, by his pasting them on the outer door, of, the relevant premises, (b) also hence, enjoined to also mention the name, and, addresses of the persons, by whom the relevant house, was, identified, and, in whose presence the copy, of, summons was affixed or pasted on the outer door of the premises, whereat, the petitioner hence ordinarily resides. However, the afore report, made by the process server concerned, on the reverse of the apposite summons, per se omits, to make all the afore statutory disclosures, merely, on pretext of no witness being found at the relevant spot. The afore reason, for his transgressing the mandate, borne in the last lines of Order 5, Rule 17, CPC, is per se flimsy, and, pretextual. The afore reason, for his transgressing the mandate, borne in the last lines of Order 5, Rule 17, CPC, is per se flimsy, and, pretextual. Rather, the process server concerned, was enjoined to make, a fresh resort, vis-a-vis, the afore mechanism, (i) and, only after his making, a report of his apposite failure, to the learned trial Court concerned, (ii) and, thereafter the latter proceeding, to make a direction, upon him, to make a fresh endeavour, to, personally serve the defendant No.1/petitioner herein through ordinary mode, (iii) and, only on failure thereof, he would stand empowered, after meteing the fullest deference to the mandate, of, the relevant provisions, to, hence, cause valid effectuation, of, service upon her, through, affixation. Consequently, for want, of, afore re-strivings, and, reendeavours, the afore pretext for his hence omitting to beget compliance, with, the last portion, of Order 5, Rule 17 of the CPC, renders the causing of service through affixation, upon, defendant No.1/petitioner herein, being construable to be grossly flawed, and, it also contravenes the peremptory mandate borne in Order 5, Rule 17, CPC, rendering hence a further conclusion, that, the espousal made by the petitioner herein that she was not served in accordance, with law, being both weighty, and, merit worthy. 9. The learned trial Court, under orders pronounced on 30.12.2008, also directed thereat, that apart from the process serving agency, hence, causing service of summons, upon the petitioner herein, through affixation, the apt service being strived to be effectuated, through, registered covers, (a) and, the endorsement made by the postman concerned, upon, the RAD reveals that he could not personally serve the addressee, (b) and, rather had dropped the notice into the door, and, hence, therefrom it is apparent that the addressee was not, at the relevant time, residing in the premises mentioned against her name, in the, memo of parties, of, Civil Suit bearing No. 95/1 of 2010/08. The further effect of the afore discussion, is, that it cannot be concluded firmly, (c) more so, when the process server did not step into the witness box, for, testifying that the summons, as, hence were affixed, on the face of the outer door of the premises purportedly ordinarily occupied by the defendant/petitioner herein, were personally known to him, to be occupied by her, (d) thereupon, the endorsement, made, on the reverse of the apposite summons, that he, had affixed them on the outer door, of, the premises of the defendant/petitioner herein, stands falsified, (e) conspicuously rather vis-a-vis, his affixing them, on the face of the outer door of the premises, whereat, the petitioner/defendant, rather was actually residing, (f) and, also a further inference is rearable, that, the summons may have been affixed on the outer door of the premises, other, than the one ordinarily occupied by the defendant/petitioner herein, (g) and, concomitantly also it is inferable, that, hence the defendant/petitioner herein, even upon, her visiting her premises, depicted, against her name in the memo of parties, in the civil suit, failed to notice the date mentioned therein, for hers thereat hence recording her personal appearance before the learned trial Court, (h) thereupon, her failure to appear before the learned trial Court, on 10.03.2009, cannot be construed to be a sequel of hers either deliberate or intentional, rather is construed to be hence, bonafide. (h) nor hence any presumption, of, truth is attached to the relevant official act, as it being rebutted by the afore inferences, sparked by the afore evident statutory infraction. 10. (h) nor hence any presumption, of, truth is attached to the relevant official act, as it being rebutted by the afore inferences, sparked by the afore evident statutory infraction. 10. Be that as it may, the afore reasons, where through this Court, is constrained to conclude, that, the defendant/petitioner herein, was not served, in accordance with law, nor she had knowledge of proceedings, drawn against, her, (i) thereupon, she is to be believed that she acquired knowledge qua the ex-parte judgment, and, decree only in the month of May, 2013, inasmuch as on 28.5.2013, (ii) especially when an affirmative suggestion in consonance therewith, is, meted to her by the counsel for the respondents, while holding her to cross-examination, whereto she meted an affirmative answer, (iii) thereupon, it is concluded, dehors, hers rendering a minimal prevaricated version qua, despite, hers applying earlier thereto, on 24.5.2013, for the copy of the judgment, rather hers only on 28.5.2013, hence acquiring the fullest actionable knowledge about rendition, of, an ex-parte judgment, and, decree. The afore minimal prevarication, is, also condonable, given hers applying, for, the copy of decree sheet on 29.5.2013, hence, a day latter to hers acquiring personal knowledge, from one Bala Nand Mehta, qua an ex-parte judgment and decree being passed against her, and, when she could rear, a, valid first appeal against the ex-parte judgment, and, decree only upon hers being supplied with a copy of the decree sheet, (iv) thereupon, merely, upon, the afore minimal prevarication, it would not be befitting to disbelieve her qua hers acquiring belated knowledge, about, the rendition of a ex-parte judgment, and, decree, in, civil suit No. 95/1 of 2010/08. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is allowed, and, the order impugned before this Court, is, set aside. Consequently, CMP No.309-S/6 of 2013 is allowed, and, the delay as has occurred in instituting, the, appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, against the ex-parte judgment, and, decree, rendered by the learned trial Court, upon, Civil Suit No. 95/1 of 2010/08, is condoned. The learned District Judge, Shimla is directed to register the appeal in the apposite register, and, to decide it in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Shimla on 29th March, 2019. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.