SHYAM SUNDER Vs. SURJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants have preferred this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (d) CPC against order dated 21st of April 2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court'). By the order impugned, learned trial Court has rejected the application of appellants under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 7th of July 1994, passed in Civil Suit No.103/1991 for specific performance of contract filed by the respondents.

(2.) Brief facts, giving rise to this appeal are that appellants, after receiving notices for execution of decree dated 7th of July 1994, made endeavour before leaned trial Court for setting aside ex-parte decree. On behalf of appellants, an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was filed, precisely, on the ground that summons of the suit were not properly served on them. As the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was filed belatedly, the appellants also laid an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The application aforesaid is contested by respondents by filing reply to the same. The learned trial Court after considering rival submission, by the order impugned rejected the application of appellants under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused impugned order and also scanned record of the case.