IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSANDAND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2626 OF 2010 Between: J.Anandam …Petitioner A n d T.Radha Krishna ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2626 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.11.2009 in C.M.A.No.53 of 2007, on the file of the II-Additional District Judge, Warangal, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed, confirming the order dated 27.08.2007 in I.A.No.639 of 2009 in O.S.No.428 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.428 of 2004 against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of amount allegedly due. The suit was decreed ex parte. The respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.7 of 2007. After receiving notice in the E.P., the petitioner/ defendant approached the trial Court and filed I.A.No.639 of 2009 under Order XIX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree. According to the petitioner, he had no knowledge of the date of hearing as he was not served with summons and he had no knowledge of the ex parte decree passed on 14.06.2007. The plaintiff opposed the application on the ground that the defendant intentionally evaded to receive the summons. The trial Court dismissed the application holding that it was filed only with an intention to drag the matter. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/defendant filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.53 of 2007. The learned Additional District Judge, by the impugned order, dismissed the appeal. 4. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that he was not personally served with the summons and the suit was decreed ex parte after ordering substituted service by way of publication. As seen from the docket proceedings of the trial Court, summons were issued to the defendant repeatedly and they were returned unserved and ultimately on an application filed by the plaintiff, substituted service by way of publication was ordered. It was also noticed by the Court below that summons were sent to the same address to which the plaintiff issued the legal notice prior to filing the suit, which was received by the defendant at that address. It is also significant to note that the defendant received notices in the E.P at the same address. Both the Courts below found that the affidavit filed by the defendant in support of the application does not contain any valid or justifiable grounds for setting aside the ex parte decree. 5. It cannot be disputed that service of summons by way of substituted service through publication in the local newspaper largely circulated in the area is valid and equally efficacious. The defendant cannot seek setting aside of the ex parte decree on the mere ground that substituted service was ordered by way of publication when such mode of service is permitted under law. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in G.P.SRIVASTAVA v. R.K.RAIZADA AND OTHERS[1] wherein the Apex Court held that the expression “was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing” occurring in Order IX Rule 13 CPC must be liberally construed and Courts have wide discretion in the matter. In the above case, the defendant against whom an ex parte decree was passed has urged three reasons for his non-appearance and they were found to be valid and justifiable affording sufficient cause for his non- appearance. In the present case, the petitioner/defendant has not put forward any valid reason, much less sufficient cause, except stating that he was not served with the summons personally. The decision cited, which relates to a case where the defendant was served with the summons, but could not appear on the date of hearing as he was prevented from so appearing by sufficient cause, is therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case, where the Courts below have found that the defendant in spite of having knowledge evaded to receive the summons and filed the application for setting aside the ex parte decree only to protract the proceedings. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in BASANT SINGH AND ANOTHER v. ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION[2], wherein it was held that when once it is proved that summons has been sent by registered post to a correct and given address, the bald assertion without evidence that registered letter was not tendered would not be sufficient to discharge the statutory burden cast on the defendant. It was further held that under Order V Rule 20 CPC, the satisfaction of the Court was implicit in the order directing service by publication. 8. The impugned order passed by the trial Court, dismissing the application in due exercise of its discretionary power, which is confirmed in appeal, does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, as the impugned order does not suffer from illegality or material irregularity. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim stay stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 12th July, 2011 Lrkm. [1] (2000) 3 SCC 54 [2] (2002) 7 SCC 531