HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No. 492 of 2010 Date: 13-07-2010 Between: Kotham Krishna Reddy ……….. petitioner And A.B.N. Mohan ……… Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No. 492 of 2010 ORDER: This Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 25-01-2010 in I.A.No.202 of 2009 in O.S.No.1658 of 2006 on the file of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein is the petitioner in the said I.A. and defendant in the suit. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff/respondent herein filed O.S.No.1658 of 2006 for recovery of Rs.4,41,545/-. The address of the defendant is shown as 16-11-511/D/231, Shalivahana Nagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, in the said suit. The summons were returned unserved with an endorsement ‘left’. Then paper publication was ordered for substitute service and the summons against the defendant were published in Janatha Telugu daily, and thereafter, he was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 04-09-2007. In pursuance of the said decree, E.P.No.99 of 2008 was filed and the movables of the defendant were attached after the plaintiff/decree holder furnished the address of the defendant as house No.2-25, Block-2, Bahar Sahara Estates, L.B. Nagar. It also appears that plaintiff earlier filed a criminal case with regard to some other promissory note against the defendant in C.C.No.792 of 2007 on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein the address of the defendant is shown as 2-25, Block-2, Bahar Sahara Estates, L.B. Nagar. 3. The defendant filed an Application to set aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. along with another Application in I.A.No.202 of 2009 in O.S.No.1658 of 2006 to condone the delay of 536 days in filing the said Application. The lower Court, having considered the rival contentions, allowed the Application on condition of the defendant/petitioner furnishing third party security for the E.P. amount of Rs.5,10,410/-. 4. The only contention of Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner herein, is that admittedly correct address was not furnished in the suit and that Janatha Telugu daily is not having wide circulation in the locality, where the petitioner has been residing and the condition imposed by the lower Court is onerous and in the circumstances, the condition may be modified. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent herein is that there was exchange of notices between the parties before filing of the suit and in those notices, the petitioner has furnished address as H.No.16-11-511/D/231, Shalivahan Nagar, Dilshukhnagar. 6. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the condition imposed by the lower Court is onerous and whether the same requires modification? 7. It is not in dispute that in the plaint the address of the defendant was shown as Shalivahan Nagar, Dilshukhnagar. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff himself filed a memo in the E.P. showing the address of the defendant at Bahar Sahara Estates, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. It is also true that in the notice, dated 20-02-2006 and in the reply notice the address of the defendant was shown as Shalivahan Nagar, Hyderabad. Whatever it may be, the fact remains that the plaintiff himself in the E.P. proceedings furnished address of the defendant at Bahar Sahara Estates, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. In view of the same, there cannot be any doubt to say that the defendant did not receive summons, as he was residing at Bahar Sahara Estates, L.B. Nagar. Order 5 Sub-Rule (1A) of Rule 20 of C.P.C. is as follows: “Where the Court acting under sub-rule (1) orders service by an advertisement in a newspaper, the newspaper shall be a daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain.” Thus it is clear that the newspaper must be a daily newspaper and must have circulation in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain. 8. The main purpose of publishing a notice in a daily newspaper is that the locality people and the defendant must come to know about the institution of the suit against him and the date of adjourning the said suit. If the notice is published in a newspaper, which has no circulation and which is published only for the purpose of printing notices, it cannot be said that there is compliance of Sub-Rule (1A) of Rule 20 of Order 5 of C.P.C. In view of the same, it is clear that the lower Court was justified in condoning the delay. Moreover the plaintiff has not challenged the order passed by the lower Court. Now the challenge is made by the defendant in the suit. The original principal amount, according to the plaintiff himself, is only Rs.2,60,000/-. It is true that while setting aside the ex parte decree or condoning the delay, the Court may impose conditions, however those conditions must be just and reasonable and should not be onerous and that for non-compliance of the conditions, a party may not be thrown out of Court. 9. In the above circumstances, the condition imposed by the lower Court in the impugned order is modified ordering that inspite of furnishing third party security, the defendant/petitioner herein may deposit title deed of any property belonging to himself or any third party worth Rs.5 lakhs to the satisfaction of the lower Court. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 10. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. The lower Court may make an endeavor to dispose of the suit as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the plaintiff/respondent herein cooperates for the same. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 13-07-2010 YCR