THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A. No. 372 of 2000 JUDGMENT: The father of the appellant, by name Devanna, figured as defendant No.12 in O.S.No.150 of 1993 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. The suit was filed for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. He was set ex parte on 03.12.1993. Thereafter, an ex parte preliminary decree was passed on 03.02.1997. Devanna died on 12.09.1998. The plaintiffs in the suit initiated final decree proceedings. At that stage, the appellant, who is the daughter of Devanna, filed I.A.No.672 of 1999 with a prayer to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree, dated 03.02.1997. The application was opposed by the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. on 30.11.1999. Heard Sri K.M.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. Though the respondents are served with notice, they have not chosen to enter appearance. The trial Court found that the summons in the suit were served upon the father of the appellant on 19.11.1993. It is thereafter that he was set ex parte. The appellant raised an objection as to the service of summons by stating that Devanna was an illiterate and he used to put thumb impression, whereas the report of the Bailiff is to the effect that signature was put thereon. Even if this circumstance is to be read in favour of the appellant, the fact remains that her father refused to receive the summons in the final decree proceedings, on 10.08.1997. A clear endorsement was made to the effect that he refused to receive the summons. It, therefore, emerges that the deceased had knowledge about the preliminary decree as well as the final decree and there was absolutely no basis for the appellant to plead that the ex parte decree was passed without his knowledge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:05.08.2010 kdl