JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 2. The plaintiff/1st respondent, by name, Sri N.P. Balaraja Naidu (the deceased) filed O.S.No.89 of 2015 against the present 4th respondent/1st defendant, by name, Sri M. Jyotheswara Naidu, for specific performance of contract, on the file of the V Additional District Judge's Court, Tirupati. The suit was filed on 8/4/2015. The 1st defendant, pending the suit, executed sale deed on 27/5/2015 in favour of the present 2nd respondent. The 2nd defendant executed sale deed in favour of the present 3rd respondent on 5/6/2015. The 1 st defendant filed written statement on 3/8/2015. Later on, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.461 of 2016 to implead defendants Nos.2 and 3 as parties in the suit, which was allowed. The suit is pending. 3. In the suit, by order, dtd. 31/1/2020, the Court passed the order to proceed ex parte against the petitioner/3rd defendant. The petitioner/3rd defendant Smt. D. Dhanalakshmi filed I.A.No.235 of 2023 under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC read with Sec. 151 CPC to set aside the order dtd. 31/1/2020, along with the written statement with permission to receive the same. I.A.No.235 of 2023 was filed on 9/3/2023, after more than 3 years of the order, dtd. 31/1/2020. 4. The V Additional District Judge, Tirupati has dismissed the application I.A.No.235 of 2023 by order dtd. 10/7/2023. Challenging the said order, the present revision petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the paper publication for service was ordered which was published in 'Prajasakhti' daily newspaper on 31/1/2020, but the said publication was not noticed by the petitioner, and consequently, the petitioner could not appear in the suit and was set ex parate. 6. He further submits that there is no bar in taking on record the written statement in civil suit, even beyond the period of 90 days. Consequently, rejection of I.A.No.235 of 2023 is not justified. He has placed reliance in the cases of Nanda Dulal Pradhan v. Dibakar Pradhan , 2022 (5) ALT 1 , Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y. A. Chunawala & Co. , (2018) 6 SCC 639 and K. Munirathnam Vs. Jakkadanam Radha and Ors. ,[ CRP.No.1262 of 2023, APHC, decided on 8/5/2023 ] . 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 8. , (2018) 6 SCC 639 and K. Munirathnam Vs. Jakkadanam Radha and Ors. ,[ CRP.No.1262 of 2023, APHC, decided on 8/5/2023 ] . 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 8. From the events / narration of facts, as above, it is evident that after institution of the suit by the plaintiff, the 1st defendant transferred the suit property on 27/5/2015 to the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant transferred the same to the 3rd defendant on 5/6/2015. Those transactions have taken place during pendency of the suit. The 1st defendant is contesting the suit by filing the written statement. 9. The petitioner/3rd defendant did not put her appearance, in spite of publication of notice in the newspaper. The ground, as argued, is that the 3rd defendant did not notice such service through publication. The ground taken in I.A.No.235 of 2023 for setting aside the order to proceed ex parte dtd. 31/1/2020, was that defendant No.3 had not seen the publication. 10. The aforesaid is not a ground to hold that there was no service. Publication in newspaper under the order of the Court's order is sufficient service on the concerned person, is well settled in law. 11. In Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India., (2008) 2 SCC 326 the appellants therein, upon whom the service was considered as sufficient on publication in the Hindi newspaper, namely Nav Bharat Times, and it was argued on their behalf that the appellants were not the subscribers of that newspaper and were not reading. It was held that such contention was wholly irrelevant, and it was immaterial whether the appellants were subscribers of the said 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 that publication, as he was not reading the said newspaper. 12. It is apt refer para-16 in Sunil Poddar (supra) as under: "16. 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 that publication, as he was not reading the said newspaper. 12. It is apt refer para-16 in Sunil Poddar (supra) as under: "16. We are also inclined to uphold the argument of learned counsel for the Bank that in view of the fact that the appellants were appearing before the civil court, it was not necessary for the Bank to get summonses published in a newspaper after the matter was transferred in accordance with law to DRT, Jabalpur. But even that step was taken by the respondent Bank. In Nav Bharat Times, a Hindi newspaper having wide circulation in Bombay and Raipur, summonses were published. It cannot be argued successfully that the appellants were not the subscribers of the said newspaper and were not reading Nav Bharat 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 the appellants were subscribers of the said 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." 13. Additionally, and most importantly, perusal of I.A.No.235 of 2023 and its affidavit annexed with the petition, in particular, paragraph No.2 thereof shows that the petitioner/3rd defendant came to know about the suit, when she received copy of petition in I.A.No.461 of 2016 to implead her and the 2nd defendant as parties in the suit. 14. Relevant part of para-2 of the petitioner's affidavit is reproduced as under: "...Absolutely I have no knowledge about the pendency of the proceedings and she came to know about suit, when she received petition in I.A.No.461/2016 to implead me and 2nd defendant as parties. 14. Relevant part of para-2 of the petitioner's affidavit is reproduced as under: "...Absolutely I have no knowledge about the pendency of the proceedings and she came to know about suit, when she received petition in I.A.No.461/2016 to implead me and 2nd defendant as parties. After receipt of said notice, I have not received any summons from this Hon'ble Court in the above suit i.e., after allowing of implead application. I am under the impression that I may receive suit summons from this Hon'ble Court but I did not receive the same." 15. It is thus admission of the petitioner/3rd defendant in paragraph No.2, as aforesaid, that the copy of the application I.A.No.461 of 2016 filed in suit was received by her. The petitioner had therefore not only knowledge of the pendency of the suit but also that the application for her impleadment was filed which was served on her. So, the plea that the 3rd defendant had no knowledge of the pendency of the suit, because she did not see the paper publication, cannot be accepted and does not furnish sufficient ground / cause for setting aside the order dtd. 31/1/2020 under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. 16. The petitioner / defendant No.3 in the suit did not appear in the suit. Consequently, the order was passed on 31/1/2020 to proceed ex parte against her. 17. The application for setting aside the said order was also filed on 9/3/2023 after more than 3 years. 18. The learned V Additional District Judge, Tirupati has correctly recorded that the application was filed after three years of the order dtd. 31/1/2020 and was barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. 19. It has also been correctly recorded that the petitioner was not entitled to the permission to file the written statement. 20. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit is coming for further evidence of DW.1. So, it is not at the stage of filing of the written statement. It cannot be said that the suit is pending at the stage of written statement, and therefore, even if the order to proceed ex parte is not set aside, the petitioner / 3rd defendant can still file written statement. So, it is not at the stage of filing of the written statement. It cannot be said that the suit is pending at the stage of written statement, and therefore, even if the order to proceed ex parte is not set aside, the petitioner / 3rd defendant can still file written statement. Unless the order to proceed ex parte against the petitioner was set aside, on the sufficient cause being shown under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, the petitioner/3rd defendant could not be permitted to file the written statement and could not be permitted to be placed in the position, as on the date, the order to proceed ex parate was passed. In this respect, there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court in not permitting to file written statement. 21. In Nanda Dulal Pradhan (supra), the facts were that the suit was decreed by the trial Court ex parte on 31/8/2004, the defendants therein filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which was rejected by the trial Court. The appeal filed there against was allowed, setting aside the ex parte decree and restoring the suit, with direction to decide the suit after affording sufficient opportunity to the defendants therein to adduce their respective evidence and rebuttal evidence. The said order was challenged in the High Court. The order of the appellate Court was reversed, on the ground that since the defendants did not file written statement, reopening of the suit would become futile. The order of the High Court was set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the order passed in appeal was restored. It was held that the reasoning assigned by the High Court was not correct, as, on the setting aside of the ex parte judgment, the defendants would be permitted to participate in the suit and cross-examine the witnesses, even in the absence of the written statement. 22. In the present case, the application of the petitioner / 3rd defendant to set aside the order to proceed ex parte has been rejected. The judgment in Nanda Dulal Pradhan (supra) would not apply, as the same would apply where the order to proceed ex parte or ex parte decree was set aside. 23. 22. In the present case, the application of the petitioner / 3rd defendant to set aside the order to proceed ex parte has been rejected. The judgment in Nanda Dulal Pradhan (supra) would not apply, as the same would apply where the order to proceed ex parte or ex parte decree was set aside. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the case of Atcom Technologies Ltd. (supra) to contend that under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, the defendant can be permitted to file written statement, even after expiry of the statutory period, though in the suits of commercial nature under the Commercial Courts Act, such permission cannot be granted. 24. In Atcom Technologies Ltd. (supra) the law laid down is that the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, do not take away the power of the Court to accept written statement, beyond the statutory period, as the nature of the provision is procedural and directory and not a part of the substantive nature. That was settled in Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India , (2005) 6 SCC 344 , by the Hon'ble Apex Court. But such law would apply in those cases, where there is no order to proceed ex parte against the defendant, where there is such an order, so long as such order is not set aside, or the suit is not at the stage of written statement, the defendant cannot file the written statement. In the present case, there is an order to proceed ex parte and this makes the judgment in Atcom Technologies Ltd. (supra) cited distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. 25. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance in the case of K. Munirathnam (supra) of this Court to contend that even if the application to set aside the order to proceed ex parte under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC is rejected, the defendant is not stopped from participating in the suit proceedings from the stage, the proceedings are pending. 26. There is no dispute on the aforesaid proposition of law. 26. There is no dispute on the aforesaid proposition of law. But in the present case, what the Court finds is that under the impugned order, the petitioner has not been stopped from participating in the suit proceedings from the stage the suit is pending if the petitioner so chooses to appear to participate from the stage of her appearance, subject to the pendency of the suit. 27. The application deserved rejection on merits as well. 28. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any force in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order is perfectly justified and calls for no interference. 29. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.