C.K. LOKESHversusP.E. PANDURANGA NAIDU

                                C.K. LOKESH                                          A
                                      v.
                         P.E. PANDURANGA NAIDU

                            SEPTEMBER 20, 1996

            (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PAITANAIK, .JJ.)                                  B

        Code of Civil procedure, 1908:

        Order 5 Rule 20A, Order 9 Rule 13--Suit for declaration of title and
for injunction restraining the appellant from inte1jedng with suit proper-           C
ty-Personal se1vice not effected on the appellant-Substituted se1vice by
publication in the new::.7Japer directed by the Court also not reaching the
appellant set ex-pmte-On becoming aware appellant filing application for
setting aside the ex-pmte decree and orde1~Allowed by Distdct Judge-Single
Judge setting aside the same-On appeal held : the Disuict Judge was right
 in holding that the appellant had filed the application to set aside the ex-parte   D
order within 30 days from the date of knowledge-High Court was in en·or in
i11te1fering with the same-Appellant to appear before the District Judge and
file a written statement-17ze District Judge to dispose of the suit as ex-
peditiously as possible.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13086 of E
1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 7.12.95 of the Madras High
Court i.n C.R.P. No. 2566 of 1995.

        R. Mohan and T. Raja for the Appellant.                                      F

        A.T.M. Sampath and V. Balaji for the Respondent.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

        Leave granted.                                                               G
        We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

      The appellant is defendant in O.S. No. 288/84 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Cheyyar. The appellant was set ex-parte on March
30, 1985. The respondent filed a suit for declaration of his title and for           H
                                  627
    628                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the suit property,
    i.e., the land to the extent of 2 acres and 30 cents. It is admitted that
    personal service was not effected on the appellant. It would appear that
    the Court has directed to effect the substitute service by publication in the
    newspaper but that also did not reach the appellant. On becoming aware
    of the ex-parte decree and order in 1990, the appellant filed an application
B   under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. within 30 days from the date of his
    knowledge to set aside the decree and order. He filed an application under
    Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. The district Judge
    condoned the delay holding that :

             "I uphold the submissions of the petitioner that the petitioner had
c            no knowledge of the case nor he was aware of the pending case
             and, therefore, he is entitled to prefer this petition within 30 days
             from the date of knowledge. hence the petition is allo~ed."

           Against the aforesaid order, the respondent carried the matter in
D revision. The learned single Judge allowed the petition setting aside the
    order passed by the District Judge. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

         It is contended by Sri Sampath, learned counsel for the respondent,
  that the respondent had taken all the steps available under Order 5 CPC
  including of effecting service through substitute service under Rule 20A,
E Order 5 CPC. Therefore, the Court was right in setting the appellant ex
  parte and passing the ex-pa1te decree. The learned District Judge after
  going through the entire material on record came to the above conclusion
  that the appellant had not been served with a notice and, therefore, he was
  entitled to file the application under Article 123 of the Schedule of Limita-
  tion act, which is 30 days from the date of knowledge. Accordingly, the
p application came to be filed, though belated by 2015 days. Under these
  circumstances, the learned District Judge was right in holding that the
  appellant had filed the application to set aside the ex- parte appeal within
  30 days from the date of knowledge. The High Court was clearly in error
  in interfering with the order passed by the District Judge.

G          The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is·
    set aside and that of the District Judge stands confirmed. The appellant is
    directed to appear before the District Judge on 28th October, 1996 and he
    should also file a written statement. The learned District Judge is directed
    to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. No costs.

H   G.N.                                                         Appeal allowed.