THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 785 of 2010 DATE: 01-02-2011 Between: M/s Rama Steel Traders, Hyderabad and another .. Petitioners And M/s Sathavahana Ipsat Limited, Hyderabad. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 785 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in I.A.No.959 of 2009 in O.S.No. 236 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to set aside the ex parte decree dated 14.09.2006. 2. According to the case of the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, they have not received any summons in the above suit. The 2nd petitioner, who is proprietor of the 1st petitioner herein, came to know about the filing of the suit when a connected suit in O.S.No.2010 of 2004 was filed and the counsel for the respondent gave some documents on 02.09.2008, whereunder the decree passed against the present petitioners in the above suit, was brought to his notice. There is no personal service of the summons and, therefore, the decree has to be set aside. 3. The respondent-plaintiff opposed the application contending that the petition is barred by time; the petitioner is well aware of the filing of the present suit and there was due publication; notice was taken to the premises, where the defendant was residing and, therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the decree dated 14.09.2006 in the above suit. 4. The learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissed the application on 23.12.2009 and aggrieved by the said order the present revision is filed. 5. The point for consideration is: Whether there are reasonable and sufficient grounds to set aside the ex parte decree dated 14.09.2006? POINT: 6. Evidently, in this case there is no service of summons to the defendants. The defendant was served with the summons in another suit O.S.No.2010 of 2004 and it appears that summons were not served to the same address in the present suit, therefore, if really the summons were sent to the said address and every effort was sought to be made to serve the summons on the defendant, there cannot be any reason for refusal of the summons. The counter filed by the respondent denies about the service of the notice on 02.09.2008 and the document in O.S.No.2010 of 2004. But even if that fact is not proved, there is no material to show that even earlier also the defendant-petitioner is aware of the filing of the suit. It is not a case where summons were served, the particulars of the publication of notice in a newspaper Visalandhra, which does not have much circulation at Hyderabad. Evidently, the petitioner has got fixed place of business and resides at Secunderabad. There is no material to show that the paper, in which the publication was given, has got wide publicity in the area where the petitioner resides. 7. Evidently, the claim of the suit is for a sum of Rs.26,39,175-16 paise, very huge stakes are involved in the liability of the defendant. Law is now well settled that when rights of the parties are involved and material determination has to be done, a fair opportunity has to be given, when there is no personal service of the notice and when the service by publication cannot be taken as a proof of knowledge of the case by the defendant. In this particular case, there is no order of the Court before ordering publication that the defendant intentionally avoided to receive summons, more so, when he was contesting the case. In this connection, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court reported in the case of Chandergupt Arora v. Smt.Shaheen Khan[1]. 8. Therefore, for the above reasons, I find that there is sufficient reason to set aside the ex parte decree dated 14.09.2006 and an opportunity is to be given to the defendant to contest the matter. Accordingly, the petition is allowed subject to deposit of Rs.5,00,000/-, as ordered by the lower Court, and also deposit of the suit costs, within four weeks; on such deposit of the costs, the plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the same, in default of deposit of the said amount within four weeks, the petition stands dismissed. Accordingly the revision is allowed. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 1st February, 2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 785 of 2010 DATE: 01-02-2011 MR [1] 2009(6) ALT 451