Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. This revision application has been preferred against the concurrent findings of both the courts below passed in Misc. Case No. 34/96 and Misc. Appeal No. 8/98 whereby the petition filed under Order-IX Rule 13 C.P.C. by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed in Title Suit No. 44/96 has been dismissed. 3. The above mentioned suit was filed by the O.Ps. as plaintiffs against the petitioner as sole defendant. Summons were sent both under Registered post and ordinary process. The summons sent by Registered post have never returned and as such deemed service was made by the learned trial court under Order V Rule 19A C.P.C. Regarding summons issued under ordinary process, it was reported by the process server that the summons were refused by the defendant and on such refusal service was accepted by the original court and the suit proceeded ex- parte. The ex-parte decree was passed on 27.11.96 in Title Suit no. 44/96 and then a petition was filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. which was registered as Misc. Case No. 34/96 on the plea that from one Mahendra Rai, she could know about the suit and the decree and after due enquiry from the court she could ascertain that ex-parte decree have been passed. Denial was made from the side of the O.Ps. to the effect that the petitioner had the knowledge about the suit as she had refused to accept the summons. In that way, when there is knowledge of the defendant-petitioner about the suit, there is no scope to entertain the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. Both the parties adduced evidence. Refusal recorded by the process server had also been exhibited in the case. The petitioner did not personally appear to depose in the case. On her behalf her husband appeared. According to Mahendra Rai, he had informed the petitioner about the suit and its decree while, according to her husband, he was informed about the suit by Mahendra Rai. Refusal recorded by the process server had also been exhibited in the case. The petitioner did not personally appear to depose in the case. On her behalf her husband appeared. According to Mahendra Rai, he had informed the petitioner about the suit and its decree while, according to her husband, he was informed about the suit by Mahendra Rai. Such contradiction was taken into consideration by the learned trial court while dismissing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. In the appellate court the learned District Judge took the view that as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act it totally lies on the petitioner to prove that he/she has not received the summons and the same can not be denied. From notion of interpretation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act it appears wrong on the face of it. In a civil proceeding burden shifts on assertions and claims made in the case. In the present case, there is denial of service of summons. On the other hand, the O.Ps. claim service of notice on refusal. 4. On consideration of the materials on record, I find that both the courts below had committed error in holding that summons had been served, although, there is nothing on record to show that there was any personal service of summons. The summons sent through Registered post never returned, so it was accepted as a deemed service and the summons sent through ordinary process, it was accepted on the so-called report of the process server. 5. In view of the position and circumstances, I am of the view that both the courts below while giving concurrent findings on factual aspects had committed error in deciphering the evidence in its proper perspective. 6. This civil revision application is allowed. Both the orders are set aside and Misc. Case No. 34/96 is allowed on payment of Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) to be deposited by the petitioner within four weeks from to-day in the court of Munsif 1st, Vaishali at Hajipur. On such deposit by the petitioner, the ex-parte decree shall be set aside and then proceed in accordance with law.