ORDER : 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 28.02.2015 passed in Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2014 whereby the learned Principal District Judge, West Singhbhum has affirmed the judgment dated 13.02.2014, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), West Singhbum, Chaibasa in Misc. Case No.12 of 2011 rejecting the application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 28.01.2009 passed in Title Suit No.8 of 2008. 2. Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has argued that from the impugned order it would be evident that the court below has given a finding that the summons, as required under Order V of Code of Civil Procedure, was not affixed in a conspicuous place. It is argued by the learned counsel that there is a finding by the court below that Sanjay Gupta, i.e. proforma O.P. No.2 (original defendant No.1 in the aforesaid Title Suit) had objected to the affixing of the said summons. It is argued that in such circumstances and the exposited facts the court below should not have proceeded in the matter in a hurried manner by fixing the dates of the case at short intervals. In fact, the court below should have given reasonable opportunity for appearance of the party and in the interest of justice should have directed for taking fresh steps for service of summons on the opposite party/petitioner. It is argued that the court below has not appreciated the fact that the plaintiff has miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding valid service of summons. 3. It is argued that even if the summons sent by registered post was deemed to be valid service due to refusal by the opposite party to receive the summons, then also, in the interest of justice it was obligatory for the trial court to direct the plaintiff/opposite party No.1, to take fresh steps for service of summons through registered post for compliance with the principles of natural justice. It is contended that though substituted service of summons under order V Rule 21-A of the Code of Civil Procedure was made, but adequate and reasonable opportunity for appearance of the opposite party was not provided, and the case was posted for ex-parte hearing. It is contended that though substituted service of summons under order V Rule 21-A of the Code of Civil Procedure was made, but adequate and reasonable opportunity for appearance of the opposite party was not provided, and the case was posted for ex-parte hearing. It is canvassed that since the amendment of the plaint was allowed, therefore, to do justice to the parties the Court was duty bound to direct that fresh summons be issued on the opposite parties since nature of the suit underwent a change on account of the amendment. On the above grounds, it is contended that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside as its continuance will cause miscarriage of justice. 4. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for O.P. No.1, has submitted that in Misc. Case No.12 of 2011, the petitioner has examined himself as O.P. No.1. He has admitted that the proforma O.P. Nos.2 and 3 are his own brothers. There is cordial relationship between them and they are in joint residence. It would be evident that petitioner’s brother- O.P. No.3 had put his thumb impression on the Nazir's report whereby custody of articles was given to him pursuant to the order of delivery of possession passed in Execution Case No. 7 of 2009. The delivery of possession was effected and possession was handed over to the decree holder, i.e., O.P. No.1 on 02.08.2009. It is contended that this makes it amply clear that the petitioner had got knowledge about the Execution Case in 2009 itself, thereafter, the miscellaneous case was instituted in 2011 which was barred by limitation under Article 123 of the Limitation Act. It is argued that Exhibit-C and C/3, shows that the summons were sent through registered post. The petitioner had refused to receive the same. That despite service of summons through the process server, registered post as well as publication of notice in the daily newspaper, namely Prabhat Khabar, dated 10.08.2008, the petitioner/opposite party did not appear in the court below. It is submitted that after publication of notice the Court had fixed the case on 29.08.2008, with a view to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file his appearance. It is submitted that after publication of notice the Court had fixed the case on 29.08.2008, with a view to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file his appearance. It is canvassed that the attending facts demonstrate that the plaintiff/opposite party had discharged the burden to prove that there was valid service of notice upon the petitioner/O.P. It is argued that the petitioner/defendant deliberately avoided appearing in the Court with the sole object to prolong the trial. It is urged that the order does not suffer from any impropriety consequently this revision is sans merit. 5. Heard. It is well settled proposition that an ex-parte decree can be set aside inter alia on the grounds; firstly that the summons was not validly served, and secondly, that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the suit. In a proceeding under Order 9 Rule 13, the test that has to be applied is whether the defendant sincerely intended to remain present before the court when the suit was called out for hearing and whether he was unable or was prevented from appearing due to sufficient cause. 6. In view of the settled propositions, the Court is required to determine and record its satisfaction that there was a reasonable and justified ground for non-appearance of the petitioner/defendant. Indisputably there is no allegation of fraud, collusion or forgery with respect to service of summons. The sole question raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner, is that the court has acted hurriedly without appreciating that the procedure prescribed in Order-V of the Code of Civil Procedure was not followed. This argument is not acceptable because it is not disputed that the petitioner is residing jointly with his brothers i.e. proforma O.P. Nos.2 and 3 (defendant Nos.1 and 3 in the court below). Admittedly there is cordial relation between the brothers. It is evident that the summons sent through registered post with A/D was returned with the endorsement that the petitioner had refused to receive the same. Thereafter, the court below, for ensuring the appearance of the petitioner and other defendants, had directed the plaintiff to take steps for substituted service of summons under Order V Rule 20 and 20A. Accordingly, the publication of notice was made in the newspaper on 10.08.2008. Thereafter, the court below, for ensuring the appearance of the petitioner and other defendants, had directed the plaintiff to take steps for substituted service of summons under Order V Rule 20 and 20A. Accordingly, the publication of notice was made in the newspaper on 10.08.2008. Thereafter, with a view to give an opportunity for appearance of the defendants/petitioner the next date of the case was fixed on 29.08.2008. The petitioner failed to appear before the Court whereafter, the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing on 15.09.2008. This demonstrates that adequate opportunity was afforded for appearance of the petitioner/defendant. In the attending facts, the contention of the learned counsel that the court acted in a hurried manner is rather misconceived. On the contrary the conduct of the petitioner manifests that he deliberately avoided to receive the summons with an intent and object to delay the trial and deny the usufruct of the decree to the plaintiffs. This aspect has been considered and elaborately discussed by the court below. In this context it is necessary to note that the provisions of Section 114 illustration (f) of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 clearly lays down that the presumption can be drawn that the addressee has received the letter sent by registered post, however, such presumption is rebuttable if evidence of impeccable character is brought forth by the person aggrieved. In the instant case, it is evident that the incontrovertible evidence is that the petitioner had refused to receive the summons and this aspect has been considered by the court below on the basis of the materials available on record. 6A. The stand of petitioner that he came to know about the decree only on 26.09.2011 is fallacious, for the simple reason that the decree was executed on 02.08.2009 and the brother of the petitioner had put his thumb impression on the report of the Nazir with respect to delivery of possession and handing over of the articles to the brother of the petitioner. Therefore, it is amply clear that the petitioner had got knowledge of the decree in 2009 itself hence, the miscellaneous case filed in 2011 was barred by limitation. 7. Thus, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, and for the foregoing reasons, it is held that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. 8. Therefore, it is amply clear that the petitioner had got knowledge of the decree in 2009 itself hence, the miscellaneous case filed in 2011 was barred by limitation. 7. Thus, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, and for the foregoing reasons, it is held that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. 8. In the result the revision is, hereby, dismissed.