Court was duty bound to fallow the procedure prescribed under Order 5 Rule 19.

The civil revision petitioners/applicants/judgment debtors have filed E.A.No.123 of 2003 under Or.21, R.106 of C.P.C. in E.P.No.20 of 2003 in O.S.No.2077/97 on the file of District Munsif Court, Alandur, praying to set aside the exparte order dated 11.09.2003. The civil revision petitioners take a plea before this Court that E.P.No.20 of 2003 was posted on 11.09.2003 for their appearance and because of the non receipt of any notice/letters, they were not aware of the existence of the aforesaid case and the revision petitioners came to know about the exparte decree passed in O.s.No.2077 of 200. Only when the Bailiff came to their premises for executing the warrant of eviction and that the first civil revision petitioner is working in a private apartment as Watchman and his wife, being the second civil revision petitioner is working as a maid servant and they used to go to their job early in the morning and return late in the evening and therefore, they were not served with any notice/summons and that at any point of time they are not refused the processes of the Court.

2.The respondents/decree holders/plaintiffs have filed their counter to the E.A.No.123 of 2003 stating that the civil revision petitioners/J.Ds allowed the entire proceedings to proceed exparte and they showed resistance only at the time of delivery by the Court Amin and that the civil revision petitioners/J.Ds. have filed the E.A.No.123 of 2003 to drag on the proceedings with a view to harass the respondents/decree holders and that the application is without any merits.

3.The learned District Munsif, Alandur has passed orders in E.A.No.123 of 2003 on 012. 2003 inter alia observing that as evident from the record since the Judgment Debtors have refused to receive the notice through private service they were called absent and set exparte on 11.09.2003 and delivery also ordered on the same day to be effected by 210. 2003. As evident from the averments stated in the affidavit, the petitioners/J.Ds. have stated that the E.P. was posted on 19. 2003 for their appearance and that they have not received any notice in this regard. The contention of the petitioners/J.Ds. cannot be accepted for the reason because as evident from the records they have refused to receive the notice sent through private service they have been set exparte by this Court on 19. 2003. In view of the above the petitioners/J.Ds. have not shown sufficient cause for their non appearance on 19. 2003. Hence, the contention of the petitioners/J.Ds. that they were not served any notice and that they have not refused any process at any point of time cannot be accepted and dismissed the application without costs.

4.According to the learned counsel for the civil revision petitioners/J.Ds., the order of the trial Court in E.A.No.123 of 2003 is illegal because the respondents/decree holders/plaintiffs have managed to obtain the service completed without properly serving the notice on the civil revision petitioners and that no opportunity was given to the civil revision petitioners to prove their contentions and that the lower Court has overlooked the fact that the Door number of the plaintiffs and defendants are one and the same and the refusal of endorsement made by the bailiff was taken as a conclusive proof erroneously to complete the service against the civil revision petitioners and therefore prayed for allowing the civil revision petition.

5.In this connection, it is useful to point out that the civil revision petitioners before this Court have earlier preferred C.R.P.(NPD).No.905 of 2007 under Section 115 of C.P.C. as against the orders passed in I.A.No.2287 of 2003 dated 19. 2006 in O.S.No.2077 of 1997 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Alandur and this Court by an order dated 30.04.2007 has allowed the said civil revision petition and set aside the orders passed in I.A.No.2287 of 2007 in O.S.No.2077 of 1997 dated 19. 2006.

6.It is pertinent to refer the relevant portion made by thi