Server was that the defendants refused to receive the summons. Therefore, there was service by affixation. On this application the plaintiffs did not seriously oppose the condonation of the delay. But however, the lower Court has gone into the merits and dismissed the application. Evidently, the personal service of the notice was not there. Merely because the date of knowledge was not mentioned and merely because immediately after appearing in the final decree application I.A.No.1786 of 2008 and I.A.No.1787 of 2008 the petitioners have not filed the application to set aside the exparte decree, it is no ground to deny them an opportunity to be heard. The rights of the parties are involved in valuable immovable properties and in fact, any denial of contest will put the petitioners to loss. Even the counsel for the plaintiffs also did not seriously dispute the condonation of the delay in the lower Court. Even in this Court also the respondents have not appeared and notice was also sent to the counsel for the plaintiffs in the lower Court, but nobody appeared. 3. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances that valuable rights of the petitioners are involved in large extent of immovable properties and passing of an exparte decree will put them to hardship, the order of the lower Court is set aside and the petition will be allowed on payment of costs of Rs.500/- to the District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy, within two weeks. After payment of the said amount and proof of the same, the lower Court shall condone the delay and take up the application for setting aside the application decree under Order.IX, Rule.13 of the Civil Procedure Code by giving opportunity to both parties.
