Judgment :- (Prayer: Revision filed against the Order dated 4.4.1997 in C.M.A.No.36/1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruppur, preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.7.1993 in I.A.No.528/1992 in O.S.No.8/1984 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruppur.) Challenge in this revision is the Order of the Subordinate Court, Thirupur made in C.M.A.No.36/1993, confirming the order of District Munsif Court, Thirupur, dismissing the application filed under Or.9 R.13 CPC. Defendant/Judgment-Debtor is the Revision Petitioner. 2. Relevant facts are as follows:- The Petitioner/Tenant borrowed Rs.4,000/- on 17.12.1979 and Rs.3,000/- on 29.12.1979 from the Decree Holder – Late Krishnasami on the mortgage of his house in Colony East. Since the amount was not repaid, the Decree Holder has filed a suit for mortgage - O.S.No.8/1984. The suit was decreed and Final Decree was also passed. For execution, the Decree-holder has filed E.P.No.460/1987. The mortgaged property was sold. Sale was confirmed on 07.09.1990. 3. For taking delivery of possession of the property, the Auction Purchaser has taken Amin. At that stage, the Petitioner/Defendant has filed I.A.No.528/1992, under Or.9, R.13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC to set aside the Preliminary Decree passed on 16.10.1984. That application was dismissed by the lower Court on 19.07.1993, which was confirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge in C.M.A.No.36/1993. 4. Challenging the dismissal of the application under Or.9 R.13 CPC and C.M.A.No.36/1993, the Petitioner/Defendant has filed this Revision Petition. Drawing the attention of the Court to the lower Court records, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that Ex.C-1 would clearly show that the address for service of the Petitioner has been mentioned as the address of the Decree-holder himself [both the names are same – Krishnasami Chettiar] and there was no valid service on the Petitioner. It was further contended that the Advocates M/s.Udayakumar and Chockalingam had no authority to appear onbehalf of the Petitioner and they were not authorized to do so and while so, the Courts below erred in finding that the Petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings. It was further submitted that no notice was served upon the Petitioner for the Final Decree proceedings and the Substituted Service effected in the newspaper – 'Dinasari' was published in Madurai and there was no evidence to show that the paper had circulation at Thirupur. It was further submitted that no notice was served upon the Petitioner for the Final Decree proceedings and the Substituted Service effected in the newspaper – 'Dinasari' was published in Madurai and there was no evidence to show that the paper had circulation at Thirupur. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the Petitioner had knowledge of the suit and the proceedings only when the Amin came to the suit property and possession of the property and these aspects have not been taking into consideration by the Courts below while deciding the application to set aside the exparte decree. 5. The Respondent has not entered appearance. His name has been printed in the cause list. 6. I have carefully examined the records and considered the submissions. 7. Preliminary Decree was passed on 16.10.1984. The Petitioner has filed the application under Or.9 R.13 CPC read with Sec.151 CPC in 1992, nearly eight years after the passing of the Preliminary Decree. The Petitioner had not filed any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay or explained reasons for the delay. He has simply filed application under Or.9 R.13 CPC stating that he came to know about the Preliminary Decree only when Amin came to the suit property for delivery of possession. By perusal of the records, that statement of the Petitioner is demonstrably false, since it is seen that the Petitioner has been contesting and has been participating in the suit at various stages. 8. Even before the time of filing the suit, the Petitioner has filed application before the Debt Relief Tahsildar, claiming the benefits of the Debt Relief Act. Under Ex.P-1, Tahsildar has held that the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Debt Relief Laws. The Petitioner has filed Appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer in DRA No.40/1983, which was also dismissed on 04.10.1983. 9. Thereafter, the suit was filed. Suit summons was served on the Petitioner on 04.01.1984. Ex.C-1 is the served summons. Name of the Decree-holder is Krishnasami Chettiar S/o Rangan Chettiar. Name of the Defendant is Krishna Chettiar, S/o Malli Chettiar. In Ex.C-1 – Summons, name and address of the Decree-holder and the Respondent has been mistakenly interchanged and thereafter, the mistake was rectified by correcting the father's Name and Door Number. Ex.C-1 is the served summons. Name of the Decree-holder is Krishnasami Chettiar S/o Rangan Chettiar. Name of the Defendant is Krishna Chettiar, S/o Malli Chettiar. In Ex.C-1 – Summons, name and address of the Decree-holder and the Respondent has been mistakenly interchanged and thereafter, the mistake was rectified by correcting the father's Name and Door Number. On behalf of the Petitioner, much arguments was advanced contending that in the place of the name of the Defendant, name of the Plaintiff has been written and no valid service was effected on the Petitioner. This contention was considered by the Courts below which have recorded concurrent findings that the summons were served upon the Defendant. 10. To show that the Petitioner/Defendant was served with notice, Process Server – Angappan was examined as RW-2. RW-2 has clearly stated about the serving of summons upon the Petitioner. His oral evidence is supported by the endorsement made in Ex.C-1. Under Section 114 illustration (e) of Indian Evidence Act, the Court may presume that all Judicial and Official acts have been regularly performed. There is no material to rebut the presumption so raised, doubting the correctness of service of summons upon the Petitioner/Defendant as endorsed in Ex.C-1. 11. That the Petitioner has been duly served with notice in the suit is strengthened by the subsequent proceedings also. The summons was served on 12.01.1984. Thereafter, the Petitioner has entered appearance in O.S.No.8/1984 by engaging the counsel M/s. Udayakumar and Chockalingam, who are juniors to Mr.Veeraragavan. In the order sheet, the Petitioner is said to have entered appearance through the counsel Mr.Veeraragavan. Here again, on behalf of the Petitioner, it was contended that the Petitioner has not engaged the counsel and he did not authorize or give vakalat to M/s.Udayakumar and Chockalingam to appear on his behalf in the suit. The Petitioner has denied his signature in the vakalat. To disprove the contention of the Petitioner, Advocate Mr.Udayakumar was examined as RW-3, who has spoken about being engaged as counsel by the Petitioner. RW-3 has stated that after some time, the Petitioner's wife has taken away the bundle. Comparing the disputed signature in the vakalat and the signature of the Petitioner, the Courts below have held that the signature in the vakalat is that of the Petitioner and that the Petitioner had engaged M/s.Udayakumar and Chockalingam for appearing on his behalf in O.S.No.8/1984. RW-3 has stated that after some time, the Petitioner's wife has taken away the bundle. Comparing the disputed signature in the vakalat and the signature of the Petitioner, the Courts below have held that the signature in the vakalat is that of the Petitioner and that the Petitioner had engaged M/s.Udayakumar and Chockalingam for appearing on his behalf in O.S.No.8/1984. Since the said Advocates were juniors of Mr.Veeraragavan, in the order sheet, name of Mr.Veeraragavan has been entered. 12. The Petitioner has filed I.A.No.1144/1984 to set aside the exparte Preliminary Decree. That application was allowed on condition of payment of cost of Rs.100/-. Since the conditional order was not complied with, the exparte Preliminary Decree had become final. Affidavit and petition filed in I.A.No.1144/1984 were marked as Exs.C-3 and C-4. The Petitioner having entered appearance in Preliminary Decree stage is not justified in denying service of notice and entering appearance in the suit stage and filing application under Or.9 R.13 CPC. 13. In the Final Decree stage, notice was sent to the Petitioner atleast four times. Notices were returned unserved with the endorsement. Notice sent through Court was affixed, since the Petitioner/Defendant was not in station. In his evidence, the Petitioner has admitted that though he was away, the womenfolk would be available in the house. Referring to his evidence, the appellate Court observed that the service of notice by affixture would not have gone unnoticed by the inmates of the house. In the Final Decree stage, number of notices sent through post have been returned. On being satisfied that the Petitioner is evading Court summons, Court has ordered substituted service under Or.20 R.5 CPC. Paper publication was effected in the local daily 'Dinasari'. For this also, the Petitioner has raised objection contending that the said newspaper is published only at Madurai and there is no evidence showing that the paper was distributed at Tiruppur. Having refused to receive the Court notice number of times, it is not open to the Petitioner to raise objection regarding the substituted service. 14. From Exs.C-1 to C-4, it is quite evident that the Petitioner was well aware of the entire court proceedings. Denying the correctness of records and contending as if he has no knowledge of the decree passed, the Petitioner has conveniently filed Petition under Or.9 R.13 CPC, omitting to file application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 14. From Exs.C-1 to C-4, it is quite evident that the Petitioner was well aware of the entire court proceedings. Denying the correctness of records and contending as if he has no knowledge of the decree passed, the Petitioner has conveniently filed Petition under Or.9 R.13 CPC, omitting to file application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Petitioner has thus avoided explaining the inordinate delay of about eight years in filing the application under Or.9 R.13 CPC. Having regard to the facts and materials on record, the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that the Petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings and that he had filed the Petition at the stage when the Auction Purchaser filed the Petition for taking delivery of possession with a view to delay the proceedings thereon. 15. The appellate Court has also referred to the inconsistent and evasive answer of the Petitioner. Observing that the Court should not show leniency in allowing application filed under Or.9 R.13 CPC, in 100 LW 666 [Srinivasalu & another Vs. Krishnammal and others], the Court has held thus:- " ... the Order of the lower Court allowing the Petition for condonation of delay in filing the Petition for setting aside the exparte Decree appears to be obviously the result of a very liberal attitude and causal manner in which exparte Decree are being set aside. It is not possible to absolve the Courts from the blame for the tendency which is growing in the litigants to take exparte Decrees very causally and at leisure make applications for setting aside them on bald and general averments which are rarely scrutinised, with care which such applications and affidavits deserve, having regard to the stringent provisions of Sec.5 of the Limitation Act. In my view, the lower Court was clearly in error in condoning the delay in filing the Petition for setting aside the exparte Decree." 16. The Petitioner has not made out sufficient cause for setting aside the exparte Decree. After the exparte Decree, Preliminary Decree, Final Decree was passed. The properties were brought for sale and the property was also sold in public auction and the sale was also confirmed. Right accrued to the auction purchaser cannot be lost sight of. The impugned Order does not suffer from any perversity or manifest error, warranting interference. 17. After the exparte Decree, Preliminary Decree, Final Decree was passed. The properties were brought for sale and the property was also sold in public auction and the sale was also confirmed. Right accrued to the auction purchaser cannot be lost sight of. The impugned Order does not suffer from any perversity or manifest error, warranting interference. 17. In the result, the revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the Order dated 4.4.1997, made in C.M.A.No.36/1993, on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruppur (arising out of I.A.No.528/1992 in O.S.No.8/1984, on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruppur). No costs. Consequently, CMP is also dismissed.