Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred under Order XLIII, Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 9.5.1984 passed in Misc. Case No. 16 of the 1982 by Smt. Rajendra Kumari, the them Additional Sub-Judge at Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners-appellants under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. has been dismissed. 2. One Babulal Khemka filed Title Suit No. 18 of 1972 against the petitioners-appellants and the respondents-Opposite Parties No. 2 to 26 as defendants for specific performance of a contract dated 22.2.1959 for sale of the suit property stated in the schedule of the plaint entered into between the original /plaintiff Babulal Kemaka and late Bala Bux Poddar and late Hanuman Bux Poddar. The case of the appellants in the petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. is that the petitioner No. 1(e) to 1(h) i.e. the appellant although were residing a their respective addresses after their marriage before 1956 but their addresses were wrongly given of their fathers, house at Uppar Bazar, Ranchi and accordingly the original plaintiff, late Babulal Khemka took steps for service of registered notice and summons on all the petitioners, although petitioner Nos. 1(e) to 1(h) were not available at Uppar Bazar at that time. It is further alleged that in collusion with the postal peon the plaintiff obtained service on refusal although the petitioners had no knowledge about the suit. It was further alleged that the petitioner No. l(d) Dilip Kumar Poddar was a minor in the year 1972-73 and he was living under the care and guardianship of his mother, petitioner No. 1, Tribeni Devi, but the plaintiff knowingly suppressed the fact and shown him as a major one. Original plaintiff died on 29,6.1976 leaving behind the respondent No. 1(a) to 1(e), who were substituted in the suit but never as alleged appeared in the suit by filling any Vakalatnama through any lawyer. The suit in question i.e. Title Suit No. 18 of 1972 was decreed ex-parte on 22.9.1980. On 29.9.1982 the petitioners came to know about the passing of the said ex-parte decree against them and accordingly after inspection of the records filed application on that date under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C for setting aside the decree alongwith a petition under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. On 29.9.1982 the petitioners came to know about the passing of the said ex-parte decree against them and accordingly after inspection of the records filed application on that date under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C for setting aside the decree alongwith a petition under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. Opposite Parties-respondents had filed objection refuting all the allegations brought in the petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. and after adducing of evidence by both the parties, the learned Additional Sub Judge held that the petitioners could not prove that at the relevant time of service of notice the defendant Nos. 1(e) to 1(h) were not living at Uppar Bazar and they being the sisters of other defendants, who suit was decreed ex-parte without the knowledge of the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioner No. 1, Tribeni Devi and her son Dilip Kumar Poddar reside at Uppar Bazar itself. 3. The learned court below believed the evidence of postal peon, although he stated that refusal was made in his presence by 4-5 women but he could not identify individually as to whom of them were defendant number what in the suit. Further learned court below held that the petitioners failed to prove the delay in filling of the petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. as according to them, they gathered knowledge from 1he written statement filed in Title Suit No. 150 of 1969 in the court of Munsif. It was further held that the appellant-petitioners failed to prove sufficient course of their non appearance in the suit and as such there was no ground for setting aside the ex-parte decree. 4. Mr. P.N. Sahu was submitted that the learned court below misconceived the provision of law, and mis-appreciated the evidence on record in dismissing the petition filed under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. According to him, it was specifically stated by the two witnesses that the petitioner Nos. 1(e) to 1(h) were married long back and they were residing in their respective Sasurals in Calcutta, Dhanbad and Cuttuck and that it was bound duty on the part of the Opposite Parties to prove that on the date when the summons were allegedly refused of these defendants, they were present at Uppar Bazar, Ranchi. 5. 1(e) to 1(h) were married long back and they were residing in their respective Sasurals in Calcutta, Dhanbad and Cuttuck and that it was bound duty on the part of the Opposite Parties to prove that on the date when the summons were allegedly refused of these defendants, they were present at Uppar Bazar, Ranchi. 5. Mr, Akhtar appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that this petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. was filed only as a device in executing the decree in Execution Case No. 2 of 1982. The male members of the defendants. had appeared in the suit and filed a petition under Section of the C.P.C. for staying the suit during the pendency of the suit filed by them earlier in Title Suit No. 150 of 1969, but that petition was rejected and against that order the male defendants in the suit had filed revision petition before this High Court, which was also dismissed and then they gave up and then ex-parte decree was passed. Moreover, it could be shown that the addresses of appellant Nos. 1(e) to 1(h) was given in another suit filed by the petitioners as at Uppar Bazar, Ranchi and nowhere it was stated that they are residing elsewhere in their Sasurals. It might be that they being married daughters usually residing at their Sasurals but on the very date of summons being served and refusal made they might be present at Uppar Bazar, Ranchi because the petitioner Nos. 1(e) to 1(h) had definitely visiting terms with their parental house as in the suit filed earlier, they had put this address at Uppar Bazar, Ranchi. 6. When there is no specific case and where it could not be shown by any cogent and reliable evidence that on the date the summons were refused to the registered peon that they were not present at Uppar Bazar, Ranchi learned court below had rightly held that the plea taken by the petitioners are not maintainable in the case. 7. About delay in filling of the petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C., nothing could be shown from the side of the appellants that how they came to know of it and when they had inspected the records of the case through their representatives or Pairvikar. 7. About delay in filling of the petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C., nothing could be shown from the side of the appellants that how they came to know of it and when they had inspected the records of the case through their representatives or Pairvikar. It was within the knowledge of the petitioners about this suit when the parties are fighting amongst each other on the very suit land and when a prior suit was already filed by the defendants of this suit including the petitioners and then a subsequent suit was filed against them and some of the defendants had already appeared in the suit, it cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that the petitioners in the present case were not aware of the suit filed against them and only when Execution was sought for and levied by the decree holders, to frustrate the decree they came up with this false plea of non service the decree they came up with this false plea of non service of summons on the petitioners. 8. I find that the learned court below has categorically discussed of the evidence on record individually and then came to her finding there is nothing irregularity or illegality committed by the learned court below. Generally, Order IX, Rule 13 petitions are taken leniently, but in the present case, it appears that when the parties were fighting amongst each other, only to frustrate the decree, the male defendants of the suit had set up the females to frustrate the decree by filling a petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P. C. 9. On individual scrutiny of the evidence on record, I do not find any force in this appeal and hence the same is rejected. The stay order passed regarding the Execution case is hereby withdrawn.