JUDGMENT 1. - This civil miscellaneous appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 CPC is directed against the order dated 4.2.2002 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that in the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for eviction and arrears of rent against the appellant-defendant, summons were served on her on 29.2.2002 but she failed to appear in the Court on 7.8.2000 on which date exparte proceedings were ordered and after taking evidence of the plaintiff, the suit was decreed. The appellant moved an application for setting aside the exparte decree which was dismissed alongwith her application under section 5 of the Limitation Act holding that no sufficient cause was shown for her absence from the Court after service of summons on her. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order. 4. It is an admitted fact that the possession of the suit premises was taken on 34.2001 in execution of the exparte decree dated 7.8.2000. The application for setting aside the exparte decree appears to have been filed on 19.1.2002. No satisfactory and convincing explanation for this inordinate-delay has been given by her. The Court below has found that the reason assigned for her absence from the Court and for the delay in making the application for setting aside the exparte decree are not satisfactory and convincing and are rather self-contradictory and unbelievable. 5. I also do not find any valid and cogent reason to take a different view on the facts of the case. She has half-heartedly stated in the application that she had not received; the summons of the suit but the Court below has found that this plea is also not believable in the face of the material on record. This finding also does not call for any interference by this Court. In view of proviso second to R. 13 or 0. 9 CPC, which has been inserted w.e.f 1.2.1977 by Act No. 104/76, no decree passed ex-parte can be set aside merely on the ground that there has been any irregularity in the service of summons. 6. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for in the impugned order and this appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******