The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

a.

Quash the order dated 06.11.2015 at Annexure-G

passed in Civil Misc. No.9/2013 passed by the

Civil

Judge

and

JMFC,

Siruguppa

and

consequently allow Civil Misc.No.9/2013.

b.

Quash the order dated:16.04.2016 at Annexure-H

passed in Misc. Appeal No.53/2015 by the Senior

Civil Judge, Sirguppa.

O.S.No.132/2009 has been filed seeking for the

specific performance of an agreement of sale. In the

said suit, on notice being ordered, defendant No.1

has entered his appearance but did not file his

written statement.

- 4 -

As regards defendant Nos.2 and 3, the registered

post dispatched to the address mentioned in the

cause title were returned with an endorsement

‘refused’. As such, defendant Nos.2 and 3 were

placed exparte and the suit came to be decreed

directing the defendants to execute a registered sale

deed as per the terms of the agreement dated

05.03.1990.

4.

Subsequent thereto, Misc.No.9/2013 had been filed

under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of

Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the exparte

decree dated 15.03.2011 passed in O.S.No.132/2009

contending that the petitioners therein came to know

recently on 05.09.2013 about the exparte decree in

O.S.No.132/2009. It was contended that the

complete address of the petitioners has not been

given. The plaintiffs had intentionally shown a

incorrect address.

- 5 -

5.

Apart

therefrom,

it

was

contended

that

the

petitioners are required to be given an opportunity to

contest the matter. Objections were filed in the said

proceedings, evidence was led.

6.

Civil Judge and JMFC., Siruguppa vide its order dated

06.11.2015 dismissed the petition holding that the

pension papers of petitioner No.1 i.e., defendant

No.2 showed the same address as that shown in the

cause-title of the plaint. Hence, the petitioners could

not contend that the address is incorrect or

insufficient when it is a very same address which has

been shown in the pension papers.

7.

That apart, the trial Court taking into consideration

that the postman had not been examined to rebut

the presumption under Section 27 of the General

Clauses Act came to a conclusion that there was

infact refusal and on the basis of the presumption

under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, held

- 6 -

that the entry made in the returned cover is proper

and correct.

8.

The trial Court also went on to hold that the

petitioners-defendant Nos.2 and 3 had not produced

any document to show that they had shifted from the

said address to the address shown in the Misc.

Petition, the date on which they shifted to the said

address nor was any document produced to prove

the present address of the petitioners.

9.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners challenged

the order passed in Misc.No.9/2013 filed Misc.Appeal

No.53/2015. The Senior Civil Judge, Siruguppa

dismissed

the

said

Misc.Appeal

No.53/2015

confirming the order of the trial Court. The said

Court held that when the petitioners were to contend

that the address mentioned is wrong, it was their

duty to give their correct address before the Court.

In the absence of correct address being given by the

- 7 -

petitioners, the Court cannot consider that the

respondents had given a wrong address. The

address given in the cause title being the same as

that in the pension papers, the address being proper

and correct, there was no requirement for the said

Court to interfere with the order of the trial Court. It

is aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before

this Court.

10. Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B Hiremath, learned counsel for

the petitioners submits that:

10.1. the defendant No.1 has executed an agreement

of sale in favour of the plaintiffs in the year

1990 on the basis of power of attorney which

subsequently came into existence in the year

2003. The postman had never sought to serve

the notice on the petitioners. Hence, the

question of there being any refusal would not

arise.

- 8 -

10.2. that on an e