Sema, J. -
(2.)The sole question that falls for consideration in this appeal is, whether the service of notice sent by registered post with acknowledgment card in terms of O. 5 second proviso to R. 19-A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with S. 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 can be accepted as a sufficient notice.
(3.)This appeal filed by the defendants (judgment-debtors) arises out of the following material facts. Suit No. 473 of 1985 filed by the landlord ended in passing of an ex parte decree by the trial Court on 30-5-1986. The appellants preferred an application on 6-10-1986 under O. 9, R. 13 for setting aside the ex parte decree which was rejected by the trial Court. Their appeal before the appellate Court and revision-petition before the High Court ended without any success. It appears, initially the plaintiff (respondent herein) could not deposit the requisite process fee for which the summons could not be issued to the appellants-defendants. On 2-4-1986, the trial Court ordered the summons to be issued to the defendants, both by ordinary process and by registered post,and the case was adjourned to 30-4-1986. On a perusal of the record, and not disputed by the parties, we find that the registered notices were issued to the defendants vide postal receipt Nos. 875 and 876 dated 24-4-1986. As on 30-4-1986, summons issued by registered posts were not received back, the case was adjourned to 30-6-1986 awaiting the receipt of the service report. On 30-6-1986, the trial Court again ordered that fresh summons both by ordinary post and registered post be issued within three days. The trial Court also ordered substituted service by resorting to O. 5, R. 20, C.P.C. by publication of summons in local daily "Dainik Bhaskar." On 5-8-1986, it appears that a notice of publication in daily newspaper "Aacharan" instead of "Dainik Bhaskar" as ordered by the Court has been produced. This is one of the grievances of the appellants, which we shall be dealing at appropriate place. On 22-8-1986, the trial Court passed an order to proceed ex parte and fixed the case for 4-9-1986 for evidence of the plaintiff. As the date fixed 4-9-1986 was declared a public holiday, the plaintiff's witness was examined on 5-9-1986 and the ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 30-9-1986. It is stated that the appellants came to know of the ex parte decree on 1-10-1986 and filed an application on 6-10-1986 for setting aside the ex parte decree, as noticed above.