performance of the agreement and permanent injunction. Summon was issued to the defendant, which was duly served and the copy of summon was signed by him. Even after the summon was duly served, the defendant did not put in appearance. As a result, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him on 8.10.2012 and subsequently on 29.11.2013, ex-parte judgment and decree was passed. After about 3 years from the ex-parte judgment and decree having been passed, on 17.10.2016, the defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting-aside the exparte judgment and decree. The plaintiff filed reply thereto. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court vide its order dated 5.1.2019, observing that the application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree was made after a prolonged delay of 3 years and for which no justifiable reason was given. Thereafter, on 4.2.2019, the defendant again filed another application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree dated 29.11.2013. The Trial Court vide impugned order dated 21.9.2019 dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC observing that not only the summon was duly served on the defendant, but also during execution proceedings, the notice was duly served on the defendant and thereafter the warrant under Order 21 Rule 34 CPC was also duly served on him. The Trial Court also observed that the subsequent application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed after a prolonged delay of 6 years from the date of ex-parte judgment and decree, and no justifiable cause was shown for such prolonged delay. Hence, this appeal.
