THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R. P. Nos.2499, 2500, 2501, 2502, 2526, 3127 & 3129 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These revisions arise out of the applications filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. in O.S.Nos.48 of 1998 and 9, 10 and 11 of 1999 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. Those suits were filed for partition of different items of property. O.S.Nos.48 of 1998 and 9 of 1999 were filed by Khairunnisa Bi and the other two suits were filed by her brothers. While the subject matter of O.S.Nos.9, 10 and 11 is one and the same, namely an extent of Acs.2.66 cents of land in Survey No.221-B of Adoni, the subject matter of O.S.No.48 of 1998 is three items of property. In all the suits, the father of the petitioners, by name Mohiddin Sab, figured as one of the defendants. Separate preliminary decrees were passed in the suits on 18.08.1999 and final decrees were passed on 15.12.2000. Mohiddin Sab filed applications under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. in all the suits with a prayer to set aside the preliminary decrees as well as the final decrees. He pleaded that the decrees were obtained by playing fraud. The principal contention advanced by him was that though he is a resident of house bearing No.19- 295, summons were sent to house bearing No.19-282 and in that view of the matter, there was no effective service of summons at all. Certain other contentions were also raised by him, which touched the merits of the matter. The applications were opposed by the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the applications on finding that the summons were refused by Mohiddin Sab. Separate civil miscellaneous appeals were filed against the orders. The appeals were also dismissed on 28.02.2008. Hence, these revisions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The father of the petitioner, by name Mohiddin Sab on the one hand and the plaintiffs in the suits referred to above on the other, are the children of the same person, but through different wives. The principal contention of Mohiddin Sab was that the suit schedule properties exclusively belonged to his mother and the plaintiffs i.e. the respondents herein do not have any right or claim over it. After the preliminary decrees and final decrees were passed in the suits, Mohiddin Sab filed applications to set aside the same on the ground that the decrees were obtained by playing fraud. It is highly debatably doubtful as to whether an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. can be maintained on those grounds. Be that as it may, the plea of Mohiddin Sab that the summons were not received by him was dealt with by the trial Court extensively. Oral evidence was recorded. He filed Exs.P1 to P14 and the respondents filed Exs.R1 to R10. Two aspects become relevant. The first is as to whether Mohiddin Sab has not received any summons at all and the second is, whether there exists any ground for setting aside the decrees. Things would have been different altogether, had it been a case where the decrees were passed without ensuring proper service of summons on the defendant. The record discloses that summons were sent though registered post as well as through Process Server of the Court. The Process Server made a clear and unequivocal endorsement to the effect that when he sought to serve summons upon Mohiddin Sab, he refused and in proof thereof, he has obtained the signatures of the persons in the immediate neighbourhood. There is no denial of this fact and it is a matter of record. The endorsements on the covers sent through registered post were also to the effect that the addressee refused to receive the same. With this, the plea of the petitioners that summons were not served upon their father cannot be accepted. It is a settled principle of law that refusal to receive summons is liable to be treated as service in accordance with law. An endeavour was made to convince the Court that the petitioners are residents of H.No.19-295 and the summons were sent to house bearing No.19-282. The evidence on record clearly established that the petitioners and their father were also residing in the premises bearing No.19-282. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no service of summons upon the father of the petitioners. The applications filed by the father of the petitioners were to set aside the decrees mainly on the ground that they were obtained by fraud. The allegation is to the effect that though the respondents knew that the petitioners and their father are residents of the premises bearing No.19-295, summons were sent to H.No.19-282. This was sought to be projected as an act of fraud. It is difficult to accept the same particularly in view of the finding recorded by this Court in the preceding paragraph. At any rate, when consecutive proceedings were taking place and one after the other orders came to be passed, it is difficult to infer that the father of the petitioners was not aware of the proceedings at all. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court have undertaken extensive discussion with reference to the relevant provisions of law and the precedents touching the subject matter; and have rejected the applications and the appeals. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. The civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 07.12.2010. kdl