ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Chirag A. Prajapati for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Dhairyawan D. Bhatt for the respondent. 2. Upon the consent and request of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. By way of this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs; “(A) Be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 16.5.2019 passed by learned Civil Court, Valsad below Exhibit-1 in the petition No.10 of 2019 and condone the delay; and (B) Be pleased to stay the further implementation, execution and operation of order dated 8.12.2015 passed by learned Civil Court, Valsad below Exhibit-47 in the Special Civil Suit No.27 of 2010; and (C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the execution of further proceedings of the Execution Application No.18A of 2016 which is pending before the Ajmer Court at Rajasthan; and (D) xxx...” 4. The brief facts of the case leading to the present petition are as under:- 4.1 The respondent-original plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No.27 of 2010 before the learned Civil Court, Valsad against the present petitioner-original defendant for recovery of Rs.26,16,085.50 paisa. The said suit was decreed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Valsad on 08.12.2015. The plaintiff filed an Execution Petition which was subsequently transferred from Civil Court, Valsad to District and Sessions Court, Ajmer, Rajasthan, which was registered as Execution Petition No.18A/2016. The Notice of said Execution Petition came to be issued to the present petitioner at the address shown in the cause-title of the plaint. Upon receipt of the said notice, the petitioner came to know about the judgment and decree passed by the learned District and Sessions Court, Ajmer, Rajasthan. Thereafter, the said judgment and decree was challenged by the present petitioner by way of First Appeal No.145 of 2019 before this Court, which came to be withdrawn on 19.01.2019 with a liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the learned trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Civil Miscellaneous (Delay) Application No.10 of 2019 before the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Court, Valsad on 11.03.2019. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court on 16.05.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Civil Miscellaneous (Delay) Application No.10 of 2019 before the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Court, Valsad on 11.03.2019. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court on 16.05.2019. 4.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the present petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the summons of the Special Civil Suit No.27 of 2010 was not served to the petitioner and the address shown in the cause-title of the plaint was incomplete. Since the summons was not served to the present petitioner, the petitioner could not defend the suit and an ex-parte decree came to be passed on 08.12.2015. When the Notice of Execution Petition No.18A/2016 was issued from the District & Sessions Court, Ajmer, Rajasthan, the present petitioner came to know about the judgment and decree was passed against him. Thereafter, the certified copies of the proceedings were obtained and the petitioner preferred First Appeal being F/First Appeal No.458 of 2019 before this Court, which came to be withdrawn with a liberty to move appropriate proceedings before the learned trial Court and hence, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Civil Application (Delay) No.10 of 2019 before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Valsad seeking relief of setting aside the ex-parte decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.27 of 2010 on 08.12.2015. It is further submitted that there was delay of 1123 days in preferring the application and the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for the delay caused in preferring Civil Miscellaneous Application (Condonation) No.10 of 2019. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Valsad on 16.05.2019, whereby the aspect of non-service of summon of the Civil Suit was not properly appreciated by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the correct address of the petitioner is shown in the cause-title of the delay condonation application and the address which was mentioned in the cause-title of the plaint was incomplete and no summons was served upon the petitioner. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao and Others reported in (2005) 3 SCC 752 and in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 . 7. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao and Others reported in (2005) 3 SCC 752 and in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 . 7. By relying upon the aforesaid decisions, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the length of delay is not relevant. What is material is that the lenient and pragmatic approach to be adopted by the Court while deciding the aspect of delay. 8. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent has supported the decision of the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application, since the approach of the petitioner has been lethargic and lackadaisical and the cause of the delay has not sufficiently been explained in preferring the application. It is further submitted that summons of the Suit was duly served upon the defendant at the address shown in the cause-title of the plaint. It is further submitted that Notice of the Execution Petition No.18A/2016 came to be issued by the learned District and Sessions Court, Ajmer, Rajasthan at the address shown in the cause-title of the plaint. Upon service of such notice, the petitioner woke up from the slumber and filed First Appeal being F/First Appeal No.458 of 2019 before this Court which ultimately came to be withdrawn. Thereafter, an application for condonation of delay was filed before the learned trial Court by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte decree. 9. Learned advocate for the respondent has also placed reliance upon the service affidavit which was submitted in the Civil Suit No.27 of 2010, whereby it has been pointed out that service of summons was effected and the present petitioner refused to accept the said notice. An attempt was also made to serve the defendant at the factory premises of the petitioner which also came to be refused by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner-defendant had knowledge about the Civil Suit. In spite of such knowledge, the petitioner allowed the suit to be proceeded and after the decree is passed in favour of the respondent. Just with a view to see that the fruits of the decree are not enjoyed by the respondent, present litigation is being generated. Thus, the petitioner-defendant had knowledge about the Civil Suit. In spite of such knowledge, the petitioner allowed the suit to be proceeded and after the decree is passed in favour of the respondent. Just with a view to see that the fruits of the decree are not enjoyed by the respondent, present litigation is being generated. It is further submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner has not complied with the order dated 12.07.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, also such petitioner cannot be given any opportunity to halt the proceedings of execution. It is further submitted that refusal of the summon is a deemed service. 10. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vishwabandhu Vs. Sri Krishna and Anr. reported in 2021 (11) Scale and in the case of Basant Singh Vs. Roman Catholic Mission reported in 2002 LawSuit(SC) 960. 11. Having considered the submissions of both the sides, the papers available on record and having considered the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent and additional affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, the first question which requires consideration is about the proper service of summon of the suit. 12. Considering the submissions and the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, it is an admitted position that the summons was issued by the learned trial Court at the address shown in the cause-title of the plaint i.e. Sitaram Bazar Kesargunj Dist. Ajmer, Rajasthan. When the summons of the suit was tried to be served to the defendant, the defendant refused to accept the summons even at the address of the factory premises of the petitioner i.e. F-184, RICCO Industrial Area, Ajmer Road, Beawar, Rajasthan through Court. 13. Applying the principle of deemed service, when the petitioner refused to accept the service of summons, it cannot be said that the summons of the Suit was not served. Interestingly, the service of Notice of the Execution Petition No.18-A/2016, which came to be issued by the learned District and Sessions Court, Ajmer, Rajasthan was also served at the address at Sitaram Bazar Kesargunj Dist. Ajmer, Rajasthan and upon service of such notice, the petitioner came to know about the decree and initiated proceedings before this Court as well as before the learned trial Court. Ajmer, Rajasthan and upon service of such notice, the petitioner came to know about the decree and initiated proceedings before this Court as well as before the learned trial Court. It is unbelievable that when the service of Notice of Execution Petition No.18-A/2016 was served at the address shown in the notice, there is nothing contrary to show that the summons of the Suit could not be served at the same address. Except bald contention about nonservice of summons of the Suit is not sufficient. In such a way, the petitioner has tried to play smart with the Court by mentioning different addresses in the cause-title of the Civil Miscellaneous (Delay) Application No.10 of 2019 and has tried to create an image that the address which was mentioned in the plaint is not the correct address. However, the plaintiff’s contention falls flat on mere fact of service of the Notice of the Execution Petition No.18A/2016. 14. Thus, on the above aspect, the case of the petitioner about establishing sufficient case is a hollow contention and it is without any substance. Further, on noticing the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has not explained as to how the period of 1123 days have been calculated. By making vague statements in the application, the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court and has tried to create a show that the petitioner has a bonafide contention. 15. The learned trial Court has rightly considered the above stated aspects while dismissing the application. Learned trial Court has further considered that before the institution of the suit, a notice was issued to the petitioner at the same address which is shown in the cause-title of the plaint and the said notice was duly served upon the petitioner. Thus, the hollow contention of non-service of summon of the suit again falls flat. 16. The decisions which have been relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner has no application in the facts of the present case, whereas the decisions which have been relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondent squarely applies in the facts of the present case. Moreover, in the case of Vishwabandhu Vs. 16. The decisions which have been relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner has no application in the facts of the present case, whereas the decisions which have been relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondent squarely applies in the facts of the present case. Moreover, in the case of Vishwabandhu Vs. Sri Krishna (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in para 19, which is as under:- “The summons issued by registered post was received back with postal endorsement of refusal, as would be clear from the order dated 19.02.1997. Sub-Rule (5) of Order V Rule 9 of the Code states inter alia that if the defendant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the postal article containing the summons, the court issuing the summons shall declare that the summons had been duly served on the defendant. The order dated 19.02.1997 was thus completely in conformity with the legal requirements. In a slightly different context, while considering the effect of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, a Bench of three Judges of this Court in C.C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty Muhammed and Anr. made following observations:- “14. Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. In view of the said presumption, when stating that a notice has been sent by registered post to the address of the drawer, it is unnecessary to further aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. This Court has already held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement “refused” or “not available in the house” or “house locked” or “shop closed” or “addressee not in station”, due service has to be presumed. [Vide Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh : State of M.P. vs. Hiralal & Ors. and V. Raja Kumari vs. P. Subbarama Naidu & Anr.]. … ….” Further, in the case of Basant Singh Vs. [Vide Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh : State of M.P. vs. Hiralal & Ors. and V. Raja Kumari vs. P. Subbarama Naidu & Anr.]. … ….” Further, in the case of Basant Singh Vs. Roman Catholic Mission (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in paras 5 and 11, which are as under:- “5. Order 9 R. 13 of Code of Civil Procedure insists that the applicant must satisfy the court two conditions (a) that the summons was not duly served and (b) that the applicant was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing before the court when the suit was called on for hearing. In the present case second condition is not attracted. 11. Once it is proved that summons were sent by registered post to a correct and given address, the defendants' own conduct becomes important. Before the trial Court, the appellants were allowed to lead evidence in support of their contentions. An order to this effect was passed by the trial Court on 11.1.1991. The premises in question is occupied by two defendants jointly - Hari Singh and Basant Singh. Hari Singh appeared and examined himself stating that he did not receive the registered letter. However, the defendant Basant Singh did not appear and no evidence whatsoever, on his behalf, has been led to rebut the presumption in regard to service of summons sent to him under registered post with acknowledgment due. His own conduct shows that the registered summons had been duly served on him. As already noticed, Hari Singh appeared and save and except the bald statement that registered letter was not tendered to him, no evidence whatsoever was led to rebut the presumption. He could have examined the postman, who would have been the material witness and whose evidence would have bearing for proper adjudication. He has failed to discharge the onus cast upon him by the Statute. This apart, it is inherently improbable that the registered summons were duly served on Basant Singh but not to Hari Singh when they occupied the tenanted premises jointly.” 17. The scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited, unless and until, there is any gross perversity or arbitrariness is found, this Court would not interfere with the finding of fact. In the present case, I do not find any error being committed by the learned trial Court in rejecting the application. The scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited, unless and until, there is any gross perversity or arbitrariness is found, this Court would not interfere with the finding of fact. In the present case, I do not find any error being committed by the learned trial Court in rejecting the application. Thus, it is also pertinent to observe the conduct of the petitioner. The order dated 12.07.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein the petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the amount of decree. However, the petitioner has deposited Rs.13,08,042/- before this Court. The decreetal amount means the amount with interest and costs which have been awarded to the plaintiff. However, the learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the amount of decree means only the amount which has been awarded in the judgment and does not include the interest and costs. Such submission looks attractive but has no force and it is against the basic notions of law. Whenever the decreetal amount is referred by the Court, it includes interest and costs. 18. In the totality of facts, present petition requires to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. 19. After the pronouncement of the order, request is made by the learned advocate for the petitioner for stay of this order. On the other hand, such request is vehemently objected by the learned advocate for the respondent. Request is rejected.