1. The above Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.417 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. The plaintiffs / petitioners herein filed the said suit against the respondents herein for directing them to vacate the suit property and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiffs and for future damages at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. The suit was decreed exparte. Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed E.P.No.144 of 2005 to execute the exparte decree. In the Execution Petition also, the respondents herein were set exparte and delivery was ordered. On an application filed by the petitioners herein, an order to break open and delivery of possession was passed. Pursuant to that, the Court Amin has handed over possession to the petitioners herein.

2. Thereafter, the respondents herein filed E.A.Nos.131 to 134 of 2006 for the following reliefs, namely, to stay all further proceedings in the Execution Petition, to set-aside the order dated 03.02.2006 passed in the Execution Petition, not to record delivery of possession and to re-deliver possession of the property taken possession of by the Amin and handover to the decree holders.

3. In all the above said petitions, the case of the respondents herein was that no summons were served on the respondents in the suit and the petitioners herein have manoeuvred to get the exparte decree and in the Execution Petition also, no notice or summons were served on the respondents and the petitioners herein have manoeuvred to get an exparte order of delivery of possession and have taken possession of the suit properties behind their back. It was their further contention that the respondents are carrying on business in the suit properties and no summons was served either personally or by affixture and they were not aware of the paper publication.

4. Whereas the case of the petitioners herein was that as the summons sent through Court could not be served in person on the respondents, the same was affixed by the Process Server at the outer door of the suit property and the notice sent through post was returned with an endorsement 'intimation delivered not claimed' and only thereafter substituted service by paper publication was ordered and accordingly, the paper publication was effected and since on the date of hearing, the respondents failed to appear before the Execution Court, they were set exparte and thereafter, an order for delivery and breaking open of the door were ordered and pursuant to the said orders, delivery was effected; having wilfully evaded to receive the summons and the notice, the respondents have filed these petitions and another petition to set aside the exparte decree passed in the suit just to drag on the proceedings.

5. Before the Court below, on the side of the respondents, one P.Muthusamy has been examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P-1 to P-17 have been marked. On the side of the petitioners herein, R.Ramasubramanian, the fourth petitioner herein, has been examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R-1 and R-2 have been marked. On a consideration of the materials available on record and the contentions put forth by the learned counsel on either side, the Court below came to the conclusion that there was no proper service of summons on the respondents and accordingly ordered the applications. Being aggrieved by that, the above Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioners herein.

6. Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, submitted that at the time when the Process Server went to the suit premises as the door was found locked, the summons could not be served on the respondents and hence the same was affixed on the outer door of the suit premises; notice sent through post had been returned with the endorsement 'due intimation served' and only, thereafter, on an application filed by the petitioners herein, substituted service by way of paper publication was ordered and after