ORDER
M.L. Singhal, J.
1. Vide order dated 22.3.1978 Sub-Judge, First Class, Dhuri decreed plaintiff-respondent Gora Lal’s suit ex parte for the recovery of certain amount against the defendant petitioner Joginder Singh. Joginder Singh filed application on 18.7.1980 for the setting aside of the ex parte decree urging that 2 days earlier he had acquired knowledge about the decree through a chit left by the process server of Mansa with Mit Singh and Mukand Singh of village Moharsingh Wala. He originally belongs to village Kheri Chahalan but had shifted to village Moharsingh Wala and he had not received any information about the suit and the suit was based on a fictitious pronote and that Gora Lal had got the ex parte decree by playing fraud on the court.
2. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex parte decree? OPA
2. Whether the application is within time? OPA
3. Relief.
3. Sub Judge, First Class, Dhuri vide order dated 30.3.1981 declined to set aside the ex parte decree in view of his finding that Joginder Singh was aware about the pendency of the suit inasmuch as the postman had approached him with registered envelop which he refused to accept and when he was aware about the pendency of this suit, his application for setting aside ex parte decree on 18.7.1980 was barred by time.
4. Joginder Singh went in appeal. Learned District Judge dismissed the appeal vide order dated 30.11.1981. Joginder Singh has come up in revision to this Court whereby he has prayed for the setting aside of the orders of Sub Judge, First Class, Dhuri and District Judge, Sangrur refusing to set aside ex parte decree.
5. In my opinion, no exception can be taken to the impugned orders refusing to set aside ex parte decree. Joginder Singh JD (AW1) stated that he was not aware of the suit filed by Gora Lal against him nor he was served in the suit. Five-six months ago, Mitt Singh and Mukand Singh of his village gave him chit showing the pendency of the execution application. He stated that on 3.12.1977, no process server came to him for service nor any postman came to him with registered envelop. He never refused to receive registered envelop. Basdev AW2 stated that village Moharsingh Wala was falling in his beat. Registered envelop Ex.A1 was taken by him for delivery to Joginder Singh. He went to the house of Joginder Singh to contact but he was not available. He had known Joginder Singh personally. In his cross examination, he stated that he recorded on the registered envelop the refusal to accept it by Joginder Singh and he made this report when Joginder Singh had refused to receive the registered envelop. Gora Lal DH stated that he had told Joginder Singh about the filing of this suit after 15 days after he had filed it. Joginder Singh had been approached by the process server with registered envelop which he refused to receive. He was proceeded against ex parte.
6. Joginder Singh JD did not examine Mit Singh or Mukand Singh to show that he came to know of this decree only from them who had given him a chit regarding the pendency of the execution. This means that there is no dependable evidence that Joginder Singh had made this application for the setting aside of the ex parte decree within 30 days of the knowledge of the decree. He was required to make this application within 30 days of the date of decree when he haft been served. Service through registered post acknowledgement due is valid service in view of the provisions of Order 5 Rule 19-A C.P.C. Order 5 Rule 19-A C.P.C. lays down as follows:-
“After the defendant had refused to accept service through registered post, it is not necessary there should have been affixation or munadi.”
7. The learned courts below justifiably refused to set aside the ex parte decree and dismissed the prayer of Joginder Singh petitioner for the setting aside of the ex parte decree.
8. For the reasons given above, this revision petition fails and is dismissed.