JUDGMENT : 1. In this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioners, namely, Shri Takam Sorang & Smti Talita Sorang, have put to challenge the order dated 16.11.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Yupia, in Interlocutory Application No. 77/2018. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned order, dated 16.11.2018, the learned Court below had dismissed the Interlocutory Application No. 77/2018, for condonation of delay in preferring the Interlocutory Application No. 76/2018, under Order 9 Rule 13 readwith151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside of the impugned ex parte judgment and decree dated 04.09.2017, passed in Money Suit No. 35/2016, and the impugned order dated 09.01.2018, passed in Execution Petition No. 01/2018. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:- “The respondent, being the plaintiff, instituted a Money Suit, being Money Suit No. 35/2016, in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Yupia, against the defendants, the petitioners herein, for realization of sum of Rs. 1,79,01,000/-(Rupees one crore seventy nine lakhs and one thousand) only along with interest thereon, till realization of the same. The said Money Suit No. 35/2016 was listed on 13.06.2016, and upon the same, notice was issued to the petitioners on 13.06.2016. Thereafter, on 13.08.2016, when the notice, which was sent by a registered post with acknowledgement, did not return even after elapsed of 1 (one) month, the learned Court below has drawn presumption under Order V Rule 9 Sub Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and decided to proceed with the case exparte. Then, the learned Court below has heard the case ex parte on 10.08.2017, and delivered the judgment on 04.09.2017. Thereafter, the respondent instituted one case for execution, being Execution Petition No. 01/2018, on which the learned court below has passed an order for attachment of property of the petitioner on 09.01.2018, and thereafter, the property of the petitioners, was attached. Thereafter, the learned Court below, vide order dated 19.04.2018, has directed the petitioners to attend the Court on 08.05.2018. The petitioner came to know about the same on 27.04.2018. Thereafter, her lawyer took 26 days and she filed an interlocutory application, being Misc. Application No. 76/2018, for setting aside the ex-parte order and another petition, being Misc. Thereafter, the learned Court below, vide order dated 19.04.2018, has directed the petitioners to attend the Court on 08.05.2018. The petitioner came to know about the same on 27.04.2018. Thereafter, her lawyer took 26 days and she filed an interlocutory application, being Misc. Application No. 76/2018, for setting aside the ex-parte order and another petition, being Misc. Application No. 77/2018, on 28.05.2018, for condonation of delay of 266 days in filing the inter-locutory application No. 76/2018. It also appears that in the said Application, the respondent has submitted his reply on 18.09.2018 and the learned Court below, after hearing learned Advocates of both sides, has dismissed the application for condonation of delay vide order dated 16.11.2018.” 3. Being highly aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.11.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. It also appears that in the said Application, the respondent has submitted his reply on 18.09.2018 and the learned Court below, after hearing learned Advocates of both sides, has dismissed the application for condonation of delay vide order dated 16.11.2018.” 3. Being highly aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.11.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Yupia, in Interlocutory Application No. 77/2018, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition on the following grounds:- (i) That, the learned Court below, while passing the impugned order dated 16.11.2018, has failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on it while dismissing the condonation application of the petitioner; (ii) That, the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the summon was not duly served on the petitioners/defendants as provided under Order V Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (iii) That, the learned Court below has erred in appreciating the fact that the service of summon upon the petitioners/defendants was presumed to be duly served on the fact that the summon was received by one Shri Kapa Sorang, who is not a duly authorized agent of the petitioners/defendants, and did not make an endeavor to ascertain the fact that why the summon was not duly served on the petitioners/defendants; (iv) That, the learned Court below has failed to apply its mind while appreciating the provision of Order V Rule 9 Sub-Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure while presuming that the summon was duly served to the petitioners/defendants upon the fact that steps were sent by registered post with A/D to the right address of the defendants, though neither A/D Cards was returned after service nor steps returned unserved, which is contrary while passing the impugned order dated 16.11.2018; (v) That, there is inconsistency in the order dated 03.08.2016 to proceed exparte and impugned order dated 16.11.2018, which is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and, therefore, it is contended to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 16.11.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Yupia. 4. I have heard Mr. G. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Mr. Division), Yupia. 4. I have heard Mr. G. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Mr. G. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that in the Money Suit No. 35/2016, notice was issued to the petitioner, who was the defendants, on 13.06.2016, but the petitioners did not receive the notice and the learned Court below under Order V Rule 9 Sub Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure has drawn presumption of service of notice and thereafter, proceeded to hear the case ex parte and pass the ex parte judgment and decree on 04.09.2017. Thereafter, one execution petition, being Execution Petition No. 01/2018, has been filed by the respondent and the property of the petitioners was attached by the learned Court below and the learned Court below, vide order dated 19.04.2018, directed the petitioners to attend the Court on 08.05.2018. The petitioners came to know about the ex parte decree on 27.04.2018 and thereafter, the petitioners filed one petition, being Misc. Application No. 77/2018, on 28.05.2018, upon which, the respondent has submitted reply on 18.09.2018. But the learned Court below, vide order dated 16.11.2018, has rejected the petition. Mr. Kato further submitted that there is discrepancies in the order dated 13.08.2016, by which, the learned Court below proceeded to hear the case of the respondent exparte and in the order dated 16.11.2018, by which, the Misc. Application No. 77/2018, filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been dismissed. Mr. Kato further submits that in fact the petitioners have not received the summons and as such, this is fit case where the order of the learned Court below has to be set aside. Mr. Kato has referred one case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Tarini Charan Das Vs. On the death of Rajai Kanta Choudhury, his heirs and legal representatives Smti Minoti Choudhury @ Niyati Choudhury & Anr. [1990 (2) GLJ 457]. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Sonar, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the order of the learned Court below suffers from no infirmity requiring any interference of this Court. Mr. Tarini Charan Das Vs. On the death of Rajai Kanta Choudhury, his heirs and legal representatives Smti Minoti Choudhury @ Niyati Choudhury & Anr. [1990 (2) GLJ 457]. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Sonar, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the order of the learned Court below suffers from no infirmity requiring any interference of this Court. Mr. Sonar has pointed out that in the said Money Suit, notice was issued to the petitioners on 13.06.2016 and the learned Court below proceeded to hear the case exparte on 03.08.2016 after drawing presumption of service of notice and thereafter, the petitioners have obtained the postal receipt, dated 14.06.2016, Annexure 1, and the delivery slip of the postal department, dated 16.06.2016, Annexure 2, and the same goes to show that the petitioners have received the notice on 16.06.2016 through her brother, namely, Shri Kapa Sorang, and the said fact has not been disputed by the petitioner side and as such, the learned Court below has rightly rejected the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Sonar has referred one case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar & Anr. [(2015) 1 SCC 787] in support of his submission. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the impugned order dated 16.11.2018, passed in Misc. Application No. 77/2018. 8. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Court below has categorically held that “notice was served upon the defendants duly on 16.06.2016, i.e. prior to the suit so directed to proceed ex parte against the defendants on same address where the defendants resides as on today (copy of acknowledgement enclosed) and thus, defendants cannot said to have not received notice of Court in main suit, i.e. Money Suit No. 35/2016, and by not participating in the suit deliberately, the defendants deserve no leniency” and, therefore, the learned Court below dismissed the petition. 9. Thus, having examined the impugned order in the light of the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates of both sides and also in the light of ratio, so laid down in the case law referred herein above, and further considering the attending facts and circumstances on the record, I find that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity. 10. 9. Thus, having examined the impugned order in the light of the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates of both sides and also in the light of ratio, so laid down in the case law referred herein above, and further considering the attending facts and circumstances on the record, I find that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity. 10. It appears that Money Suit No. 35/2016 was instituted by the respondent on 13.06.2016 and upon the same, notice was issued to the petitioners on 13.06.2016. On 13.08.2016, when the notice, which was sent by a registered post with acknowledgement, did not return even after elapsed of 1 (one) month, the Court drawn presumption under Order V Rule 9 Sub Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and decided to proceed with the case exparte. Then, the learned Court below has heard the case ex parte on 10.08.2017 and delivered the judgment on 04.09.2017. Thereafter, the respondent instituted one case for execution, being Execution Petition No. 01/2018, on which the learned court below has passed an order for attachment of property of the petitioner on 09.01.2018, and thereafter, the property of the petitioners, was attached. Thereafter, the learned Court below, vide order dated 19.04.2018 has directed the petitioners to attend the Court on 08.05.2018. The petitioner came to know about the same on 27.04.2018. Thereafter, her lawyer took 26 days and she filed an inter-locutory application, being Misc. Application No. 76/2018, for setting aside the ex-parte order and another petition, being Misc. Application No. 77/2018, on 28.05.2018, for condonation of delay of 266 days in filing the inter-locutory application No. 76/2018. 11. It also appears that in the said Application, the respondent has submitted his reply on 18.09.2018 and the learned Court below, after hearing learned Advocates of both sides, has rejected the petition, vide order dated 16.11.2018, which is being impugned before this Court. The reply submitted by the respondent in Misc. Application No. 77/2018 on 18.09.2018 shows that notice was duly served upon the brother of the petitioner and Annexure A1 is the postal receipt dated 14.06.2016 and the Annexure A2 is the delivery slip dated 16.06.2016. The notice was duly received by the brother of the petitioner, namely, Shri Kapa Sorang and this fact has not been disputed by the petitioner side. The notice was duly received by the brother of the petitioner, namely, Shri Kapa Sorang and this fact has not been disputed by the petitioner side. Having not been disputed the factum of service of notice upon the brother of the petitioner on 16.06.2016, by filing any reply affidavit; the petitioner cannot successfully contend that the impugned order suffers from any infirmity. The contention of the petitioners that they have came to know about the passing of exparte order only on 27.04.2018, and that her lawyer took 26 days, and in the meantime 226 days elapsed, appears to be bereft of substance and it failed to inspire confidence. As the delay has not properly been explained, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order cannot be said to be suffers from any infirmity requiring any interference of this Court. 12. In the case of Subodh Kumar Vs. Shamim Ahmed, reported in MANU/SC/0140/2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that application under Order 9 Rule 13 can be allowed only when sufficient case is made out to set aside the exparte decree. It is also held that no sufficient cause was made out to set aside the exparte decree. As no sufficient cause was made out to set aside the exparte decree, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that approach of the High Court cannot be said to be correct exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where categorical finding has been recorded against the tenant. 13. I have also carefully gone through the case law Dr. Tarini Charan Das (supra) referred by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and find that the same would not come to their aid as that was case of total non service of summon. Here in this case service of summon upon brother of the petitioner stands established and the same has not been disputed by the petitioner. it is however a fact that there is some discrepancy in the ex-parte order dated 10.08.2017, and the order dated 16.11.2018, and the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out the same during hearing. But, both the orders were passed on the basis of materials placed before it. The documents placed before the learned court below at the time of order dated 16.11.2018, were not placed before the learned court below on 10.08.2017. But, both the orders were passed on the basis of materials placed before it. The documents placed before the learned court below at the time of order dated 16.11.2018, were not placed before the learned court below on 10.08.2017. And as such, to the considered opinion of this court, the same cannot affect the sanctity of the said orders. I have also gone through the case law-Bhanu Kumar Jain (supra), referred by Mr. Sonar and find that the ration laid down therein is also not relevant to the facts and circumstances here in this case. 14. In the result, I find no merit in this Civil Revision petition and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The parties have to bear their own costs. Stay, if any, granted earlier, stands vacated. The Case Record be returned to the learned Court below immediately.