Judgment Manak Mohta, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 28.05.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nagaur in Civil Original Suit No. 23 of 1989 whereby the plaintiff -firm was entitled to receive Rs. 17,616/-with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 02.06.1989 till satisfaction of the decree.. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff M/s Globe Enterprises, Nagaur is a registered partnership firm comprising of three partiers namely; Mohammed Nazeer, Mohammed Hussain and Shakhawat Hussain situated at Basni Road, Industrial Area, Nagaur. The firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Iron Equipments, Welding etc. The Superintending Engineer, R.S.E.B., Ajmer gave sanction to Defendant No. 4 Executive Engineer, R.S.E.B., Nagaur to get prepared “V” cross arms for 11 KV lines and Top Hampers. The plaintiff-firm carried out the aforesaid work and submitted bills for payment. Against Bills No. 786/2/86 dated 07.04.1986 and No. 786/4/86 dated 24.04.1986, Rs. 7,040/-was paid by the defendant R.S.E.B. but the rest of the bills amounting to Rs. 13,936/-were remained outstanding. Another order was placed vide letter dated 21.03.1986 for manufacturing 700 Top Hampers and thereafter by verbal order for manufacturing 200 Top Hampers. The palintiff -firm submitted four bills dated 07.04.1986 amounting to Rs. 3,680/-for 920 Top Hampers for payment but the due amount was not paid to the plaintiff-firm by the defendant R.S.E.B., therefore, on 02.06.1989, the plaintiff-firm filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 17,616/-against the defendant-R.S.E.B.. 3. Notice were issued to the defendants. After service, the defendant sought time to file reply. On 12.02.1990, the defendants remained absent, therefore, the learned trial Court proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff -firm produced an affidavit of its one of the partner Mohammed Nazeer on 30.04.1990. In his evidence, Mohammed Nazeer produced Registration Certificate of the firm, which was marked as Exhibit-1, which shows that the plaintiff-firm is a partnership firm. The witness also produced work orders Exhibits 2, 3 and 4, letter of R.S.E.B. Exhibit-5, Letter of Revalidation of Rates Exhibit-6, Letter from executive Engineer dated 21.03.1986 Exhibit-7, and Bills Exhibit-8 to 16. The witness stated that payment of Exhibit-8 and 9 Rs. 7,040/-has been made to the plaintiff-firm but Rs. 13,936/-is still outstanding. It was also alleged that the amount of bills Exhibit-13 to 16 amounting to Rs. 3,680/-has not been paid by the defendant-RESB. The witness stated that payment of Exhibit-8 and 9 Rs. 7,040/-has been made to the plaintiff-firm but Rs. 13,936/-is still outstanding. It was also alleged that the amount of bills Exhibit-13 to 16 amounting to Rs. 3,680/-has not been paid by the defendant-RESB. In this way, the plaintiff -firm filed a suit for recovery of total due amount of Rs. 17,616/- 4. Learned trial Court, after hearing the learned Counsel for the plaintiff -firm, reached at the conclusion that the palintiff -firm is entitled to recover Rs. 17,616/-with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 02.06.1989 till realization of the amount. 5. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 28.05.1990, the defendant R.S.E.B. has filed this appeal on 110.1990 before this Court. Alongwith appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record of the case. 7. During course of argument, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the learned lower Court without considering the material facts in right perspective wrongly has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff . It was contended that no proper service was effected on the R.S.E.B. They came to know on 27.08.1990 that an ex parte decree has been passed. Thereafter on the same day, they applied for certified copy of the Judgment and decree and on receiving the same on 110.1990, the appeal was filed without delay. Alongwith the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed. It was also submitted that on the application, the appeal was admitted subject to objection. Further it was contended that application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is supported by an affidavit of Shri Som Prakash Calla, Executive Engineer (O and M) R.S.E.B. Nagaur. In this way, it was prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be heard and decided on merit. 8. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that on the date of hearing i.e., 12.02.1990, the defendants did not appear, therefore, the learned lower Court proceeded ex parte against all the defendants. 8. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that on the date of hearing i.e., 12.02.1990, the defendants did not appear, therefore, the learned lower Court proceeded ex parte against all the defendants. Learned Counsel for the appellants also submitted that the learned lower Court has not considered the legal aspect of the matter as the suit was filed by the partnership firm but compliance of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act was not made. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants also submitted that the suit was barred by limitation. The case of the plaintiff was based on the bills, which were submitted on or before 07.04.1986, which are said to be not paid but the suit was filed on 01.06.1989. In this way, the suit was time barred but the learned lower Court has not considered this aspect and erroneuously passed the Judgment in favour of the plaintiff . On these submissions, it was prayed that the Judgment and decree of the learned lower Court may be quashed and set aside. 10. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the respondent supported the Judgment and contended that the defendant-appellants were properly served. The Defendants No. 3 and 4 appeared before the learned lower Court and sought time again and again to file written statement. It was also contended that Defendants No. 1 and 2 were also served but did not appear on the date of hearing on 12.02.1990. The Defendants No.3 and 4 were the representatives of Defendants No. 1 and 2 but they also did not appear on that date. Thus, the learned lower Court has rightly proceeded ex parte. No further steps have been taken in this respect before the learned lower Court. In this way, the grounds stated in the application for condoning the delay are not tenable, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation. The learned Counsel for the defendants also stated that the plaintiff is a registered firm which is duly registered with the Registrar of Firms. The plaintiff has placed on record the Registration Certificate Exhibit-1 before the learned lower Court. The learned Counsel for the defendants also stated that the plaintiff is a registered firm which is duly registered with the Registrar of Firms. The plaintiff has placed on record the Registration Certificate Exhibit-1 before the learned lower Court. It was also urged that there was no written statement or any contention from the defendants side, the plaintiff has proved his case by evidence and he has stated that on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was partner of that Firm and the suit was properly filed. The contentions raised by the appellants side are not sustainable. It was also contended that during pendency of the appeal, the respondents have filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC to take on record the copy of the entry of the Registrar of Firms maintained under the Indian Partnership Act, in which, the name of the plaintiff has been shown as partner. It was also contended that the concerned document is the copy of the public record. It was contended that the plaintiff s suit was within time. The appellant-R.S.E.B. made part payment against Bills No. 8 to 9 Rs. 7,040/-on 10.02.1987 through cheque No. 0663165 and rest of the bills amounting to Rs. 13,936/-and Rs. 3,680/-were not paid. It was urged that the learned lower Court, after considering the material has rightly decreed the suit. It was contended that the defendants were in a position to file written statement before the learned lower Court but the defendants have not filed any written statement. Now they are estopped to raise pleas. In this way, it was urged that the learned lower Court has rightly passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff , that deserves to be maintained and the appeal may be dismissed. 11. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the findings of the learned lower Court. 12. From perusal of the record, it reveals that Defendants No. 3 and 4 appeared before the learned lower Court and they sought time to file written statement. It is also revealed from the record that summons of the suit were sent to defendants through registered post. 12. From perusal of the record, it reveals that Defendants No. 3 and 4 appeared before the learned lower Court and they sought time to file written statement. It is also revealed from the record that summons of the suit were sent to defendants through registered post. It is also revealed from the order-sheet of the learned lower Court dated 112.1989 that on behalf of Defendant No. 2, Shri Deora appeared and sought time for payment but on 12.02.1990, no body appeared on behalf of the defendant-appellants and in that situation, the Court has proceeded ex parte. No written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant-appellants before the learned lower Court. The learned lower Court, after taking into consideration the material available on record decreed the suit on 28.05.1990 in favour of the plaintiff . 13. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants that compliance of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act was not made. In this respect, Exhibit-1 has been placed on record by the plaintiff , which shows that the plaintiff -firm was a registered partnership firm. Alongwith this, the plaintiff in his affidavit, stated the names of the partners and he has also stated that he is one of the partners of the firm. There is no rebuttal from the other side. During pendency of the appeal, the respondent filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151, CPC with copy of the entry of the Registrar of Firms showing the name of the plaintiff as partner. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has stated on oath before the learned lower Court and he has submitted Certificate of Registration Exhibit-1. There was no rebuttal from the other side. In this way, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants are having no force. I have considered the other contentions from the plaintiffs side, it has been stated that payment of Rs. 7,040/ -was made by the appellant through cheque on 10.02.1987 against the outstanding dues. This payment has not been denied by the appellant-R.S.E.B.. From the appellants side, no dispute has been raised with regard to outstanding dues. Thus, the contentions are having no force. Learned lower Court, after considering total material on record has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff . This payment has not been denied by the appellant-R.S.E.B.. From the appellants side, no dispute has been raised with regard to outstanding dues. Thus, the contentions are having no force. Learned lower Court, after considering total material on record has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff . I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the conclusion drawn by the learned lower Court. 14. As per the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the contentions raised by the appellants. From the record, it is revealed that Defendants No. 3 and 4 appeared in Court and sought time for written statement and Defendants No. 1 and 2 were served with the notices. The suit was decreed on 28.05.1990. The appeal was filed late. The ground stated for condoning the delay are also not sufficient to condone the delay. Thus, the appeal is also time barred. 15. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is liable to be rejected and the Judgment and decree of the learned lower Court deserves to be maintained. The appeal filed by the appellants is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.