ORDER : 1. The petitioners, who had suffered ex parte preliminary decree, had moved an application to set aside the same with a petition to condone the delay of 1103 days. I.A.No.573 of 2015 has been filed to condone the above mentioned delay. The petitioners have also filed I.A.No.244 of 2016 seeking permission to adduce evidence in Section 5 Application. 2. According to the petitioners, they had not been served with Court summons and they were not aware of the institution of the suit by the first respondent-Bank and further according to them, only on receipt of the notice in the final decree application and through the third defendant, they had come to know about the ex parte preliminary decree passed in the suit. 3. The reasons given by the petitioners are that they have changed their address, since the business had been wound up and according to them inasmuch as the summons has not been sent to the new address, they were not aware of the institution of the suit and the decree passed therein. Therefore, according to the petitioners, there is a delay of 1103 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree and hence, the present petition to condone the delay. 4. As seen from the impugned order, it is found that the suit summons sent to the petitioners through Court had been returned with endorsement “Refused”. That apart, the summons sent through the registered post to the petitioners had also been returned with endorsement “Refused”. Accordingly, the Court below had held that the suit summons sent through Court and registered post has been duly served upon the petitioners and proceeded with the conduct of the suit further and accordingly, ex parte preliminary decree has been passed against the petitioners. 5. It is now stated by the petitioners that only on receipt of the notice in the final decree application, they had come to know about the ex parte preliminary decree passed in the suit. However, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the same old address has also been given in the final decree application. In such circumstances, the reason given by the petitioners that since there is a change of residence, they are not aware of the institution of the suit by the first respondent-Bank is unacceptable. 6. However, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the same old address has also been given in the final decree application. In such circumstances, the reason given by the petitioners that since there is a change of residence, they are not aware of the institution of the suit by the first respondent-Bank is unacceptable. 6. Further, it is also noted in the impugned order that even after coming to know about the ex parte preliminary decree, they have not immediately taken steps and even thereafter, there is a delay of four months in filing the application to condone the delay. 7. The petitioners having secured loan from the Bank, they are bound to inform the change of address to the Bank so as to enable the Bank to proceed further. However, the petitioners have not intimated about the change of address to the Bank for the reasons best known to them. 8. In the above said circumstances, the Trial Court has considered the merits of the applications filed by the petitioners for the condonation of delay in the right perspective both on facts as well as on the question of law and accordingly, dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners. 9. In conclusion, I find no error or infirmity in the order of the Court below. Resultantly, both civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.