JUDGMENT : Harish Tandon, J. 1. The concurrent findings of facts are sought to be challenged in this revisional application by one of the defendants in a suit for recovery of possession upon revocation of license. It would appear from the ex parte decree passed in Title Suit No. 126 of 2009 that the said suit was instituted by the plaintiff/opposite party claiming himself to be the owner on the basis of a registered deed of sale dated 22nd November, 2006. It is alleged that the petitioner being the defendant No. 1 was acquainted with the plaintiff/opposite party and requested for a temporary accommodation in the subject property for a period of three years. The permission to occupy was granted to the petitioner but he failed and neglected to hand over the possession after the expiration of the aforesaid period. It is further alleged that the petitioner has given possession of the suit property to the other defendants and is collecting rent from them. The license was subsequently revoked but despite the same, the petitioner failed and neglected to vacate and hand over the suit property. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 14th January, 2010 with the categorical finding that the summons were served on 16.09.2009 as the acknowledgment due card returned with the postal remark "refused". The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which gave rise to registration of Miscellaneous Case No. 19 of 2010 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court, Howrah for setting aside the said ex parte decree alleging that the summons were never served upon him. It is alleged in the said application that the suit property originally belonged to one Eekatannessa who during her lifetime transferred the same to her grandson namely Golam Naksaben Molla by executing a deed of gift. The said donee after independence is mostly residing in Bangladesh and subsequently bequeathed the said property in favour of his nephew, Nurul Alam Molla by executing a wasiyatnama dated 02.06.1976. 2. After the execution of the said wasiyatnama the Golam Naksaben Molla left India forever and started living in Bangladesh where he died long before 2006. The said donee after independence is mostly residing in Bangladesh and subsequently bequeathed the said property in favour of his nephew, Nurul Alam Molla by executing a wasiyatnama dated 02.06.1976. 2. After the execution of the said wasiyatnama the Golam Naksaben Molla left India forever and started living in Bangladesh where he died long before 2006. It is, thus alleged that the father of the petitioner became the absolute owner of the suit property and upon his death, it devolved upon his sons and daughters and therefore the petitioner is one of the co-owners in respect thereof. 3. It is further alleged that the petitioner was all along enjoying the suit property by running a partnership business in the name and style of M/s. R.K. Welding Works and is also realizing rent from the other defendants. The summons of the suit was never served upon him and the factum of ex parte decree came to his knowledge on 21st July, 2010 when unknown persons claiming themselves to be the process server approached the suit premises and asked for delivery of possession. The petitioner further alleged that subsequently an enquiry was made through his advocate and came to know that the said suit proceeded ex parte and the writ of possession was issued to the process server in Title Execution Case No. 12 of 2010 filed by the plaintiff/opposite party. After inspecting the record, the petitioner finds that the plaintiff has wrongly claimed his right, title and interest in the suit property on the basis of the impugned deed of sale and have also managed the service of summons in collusion and conspiracy with the process server and the postal peon. 4. The plaintiff/opposite party denied the aforesaid allegations and stated that the summons were duly served upon the petitioner and the Court therefore did not commit any error in proceeding with the suit ex parte. 5. Undisputedly, the process server as well as the postal peon was examined by the plaintiff/opposite party and their deposition would be considered later. The Trial Court dismissed the said application filed by the plaintiff holding that the summons were properly served upon the petitioner and therefore the allegation that it was never tendered is unfounded. 5. Undisputedly, the process server as well as the postal peon was examined by the plaintiff/opposite party and their deposition would be considered later. The Trial Court dismissed the said application filed by the plaintiff holding that the summons were properly served upon the petitioner and therefore the allegation that it was never tendered is unfounded. The Appellate Court affirms the finding of the Trial Court and relied upon the provisions contained in Order V Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to uphold the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the orders recorded in the said suit would reveal that the Court was not satisfied with the service of summons and there is no declaration to the effect that the service through a process server was properly made. It is further submitted that there is a discrepancy in the order recording the service of summons and therefore the Court ought to have set aside the ex parte decree. It is strenuously submitted that the petitioner was all along in the suit premises on his independent right, title and interest and if the opportunity to contest the suit is not given, it would have a serious impact on such right. 7. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the plaintiff/opposite party submits that the Court declares the summons to have been served upon the petitioner and there is no illegality in proceeding to decide the suit ex parte. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not proved non service of summons upon him in his evidence and there is no illegality in the judgments of both the Courts below. It is arduously submitted that "refusal" is a good service and the Court proceeded ex parte treating the summons to have been served upon the defendant/petitioner. It is, thus submitted that the High Court should not interfere with concurrent findings of facts and the revisional application is liable to be dismissed. 8. The facts narrated above would unfurl that the suit was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party claiming to be the owner thereof on the basis of deed of sale and introduction of the petitioner into the premises as temporary occupant for three months. The other defendants are also arraigned as the party as they had been inducted by the petitioner and the rents are being collected from them. The other defendants are also arraigned as the party as they had been inducted by the petitioner and the rents are being collected from them. The Trial Court proceeded simplicitor on the basis of the title claimed by the plaintiff/opposite party and also presumed the possession on the strength of the mutation certificate. Though this Court is conscious on the proposition of law that the extent of consideration under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited yet the aforesaid observation becomes necessary because of the complexity of the rival title claimed by the respective parties. The evidence of the process server as relied upon by the plaintiff/opposite party as well as the Court has no relevance in the instant case for the reason that the report of the process server was not accepted by the Court. 9. Furthermore, the process server who allegedly executed the summons is no longer in service and the other process server came to depose and the entire evidence is based upon the reports submitted by him. As stated earlier, the report was not accepted by the Court, at least the Court does not find from the orders recorded in the suit and therefore this Court does not find that it can be relied upon for the purpose of service of summons. 10. Furthermore, Order 5 Rule 9 postulates the declaration that the summons has been duly served upon the defendant to be one of the prerequisite conditions. So far as the evidence of the other witness attached to the Howrah Head Post Office is concerned, the deponent himself stated that he has no personal knowledge of such service and is holding the post of a Public Relation Inspector since 2013. The said witness categorically stated that the postman of the concerned post office is more conversant with the report of the delivery of article and he has no personal knowledge in this regard. However, he stated that normally the postal article is returned to the sender within seven days from the date of the intimation given by the postal peon but in the instant case it was kept for more than ten days. However, the explanation is sought to be given in this regard is that it may be on the prayer of the addressee. However, the explanation is sought to be given in this regard is that it may be on the prayer of the addressee. The evidence of the petitioner is basically founded on the assertion of his title in respect of the property and there is a categorical denial that the summons were ever tendered to him. 11. This Court feels safe to proceed on the basis of the orders recorded in the said suit leading to the ex parte decree instead of examining the evidence of the respective parties. The suit was instituted on 16.06.2009 and the summons were directed to be issued upon the defendant in two manners, 12. Firstly, through process server, and, 13. Secondly, by registered post. 14. The next date was fixed on 27.07.2009 when the Court recorded that the service has not been effected. The order recorded on 16.09.2009 is relevant for the present purposes and needs to be meticulously examined. The first sentence of the said order recorded the appearance of the plaintiff/opposite party where the second sentence, which is very vital in the instant case recorded that the service returned though received but not properly served. The Court, however, recorded that there is no acknowledgement due card in the record. Astonishingly, the Court thereafter recorded that subsequently the acknowledgment due card is received containing an endorsement refused and instantly fix the date for ex parte hearing after a gap of three months. 15. As indicated above once the Court did not find that the service has been properly effected in the first breath then there does not appear to be any justification in recording the acknowledgement due card having received with the remark 'refused'. The reason for non-consideration of the evidence of the process server is that the Court did not declare the service to have been effected through such means. The recording on 16.09.2009 would corroborate the same. 16. It is really surprising that the first three sentences in the order clearly indicates that the service has not been effected nor the acknowledgement due card was received by the Court. But subsequently, it proceeded to record that the acknowledgement due card has returned with the remark 'refused'. If the postal article containing the summon is returned with the remark 'refused', it leads to a presumption of due service but such presumption is rebuttable one. But subsequently, it proceeded to record that the acknowledgement due card has returned with the remark 'refused'. If the postal article containing the summon is returned with the remark 'refused', it leads to a presumption of due service but such presumption is rebuttable one. It raises a suspicion in the mind when the mutually destructive statements are recorded in the order dated 16.09.2009. The person from the postal department has also indicated that once there is a recording that postal peon has served the intimation to the addressee, such postal article is only kept for seven days. If the intimation is given of the postal article being addressed to the addressee and there was no claim subsequently by him, this Court is in fix whether the endorsement refusal is the proper mode. 17. This Court has experienced that in such situation the postal article is returned 'unclaimed'. The refusal normally connotes the presence of the addressee and the tendering of the document by the postal peon and the refusal is an instantaneous act, which does not require keeping of the postal article for a period often days. 18. This Court, therefore, finds that both the Courts below have not considered the matter in such perspective and therefore committed error in rejecting the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. 19. Apart from the same, this Court finds that when a serious question as to the title over the property is raised, an opportunity should be given to the defendant to contest the said suit as it would not only effect his right in presentee but would affect his posterity. Both the orders impugned in the revisional application are set aside. 20. As a consequence whereof an application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 stands allowed. 21. Ex parte decree dated 14th January, 2010 is hereby set aside. 22. The Title Suit No. 126 of 2009 is restored to its original file and number. 23. The petitioner is directed to file written statement within thirty days from date. The Trial Court is requested to make efforts to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and preferably within six months from date of the filing of the written statement. 24. The revisional application is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.