Sufficient reasons for not appearing before court shown by petitioners.

The present revision is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Alandur dated 19. 2006 made in I.A.No.2287 of 2003 in O.S.No.2077 of 1997.

2. The backdrop of the case which is necessary for the disposal of the present revision is as follows:

The respondents herein filed the suit against the petitioners in O.S.No.2077 of 1997 before the learned District Munsif, Alandur for delivery of vacant possession of the property, damages for use and occupation, and for costs. In the said suit, the petitioners have been set exparte and an exparte decree has been passed against them. To set aside the same, the petitioners have preferred an application under Order 9 Rule C.P.C. along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1014 days. The said application has been dismissed by the learned District Munsif and the present revision is directed against the said order.

3. Mr.Ravichandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners have not at all received the summons and they were not at all aware of the decree that has been passed against them. Only on 10. 2003, when the Bailiff came for executing the warrant of eviction in E.P.No.20 of 2003 they came to know of the fact that the suit has been levied against them and an exparte decree has been passed against them. Immediately, they have filed an application to set aside the exparte decree along with an application to condone delay for preferring the said application. The learned counsel further urged that when the summons is refused, as per the endorsement of the Bailiff, he should have been directed to file an affidavit and he should have examined on oath as per Order 5 Rule 19 C.P.C. and this has not been followed by the Court below and hence, the Court below should have to considered the application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

4. Per contra, Mr.V.Kannan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the petitioners have not established that the summons have not been served on them. Further, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, when once the Bailiff made an endorsement that the petitioners have refused to receive the summons and when it is sought to affixed, the same has been objected to by the petitioners, it should be taken that the petitioners are aware of the suit and hence, no indulgence can be shown to them.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

6. In their application, the petitioners have averred that they have not received the summons for the hearing on 30.11.2000. Further, they have averred that only on 10. 2003, when the Bailiff came to the premises for executing the warrant, they came to know about it and immediately they have filed the application to set aside the exparte decree along with an application to condone the delay. Further, they have averred that the first petitioner is employed as a watchmen in a private apartment and his wife is employed as domestic servant, due to their job, they used to go early in the morning and come late in the evening and they have not served with any summons and also they have not refused to receive any of the processes at any point of time. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the petitioners have deliberately refused to accept the court summons. Further, it has been stated in the said counter that the Bailiff endorsement in the process shows that the petitioners have refused to receive the summons, the same has to be taken as the true state of affairs and on the basis of the said endorsement, it can be presumed that the petitioners have refused to receive the summons and now after a long period, they cannot file an application to set aside the decree along with an application to condone the delay in preferring the said application.

7. It is not the case of the petitioners or the respondents that the