JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant upon application filed under Section 5, Limitation Act. 2. This appeal is directed against order dated 28.05.2009 passed by Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Hanumangarh upon application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 , C.P.C., by which, the trial Court rejected the said application. 3. As per facts of the case, suit was filed for specific performance of agreement dated 01.03.2001 before the District Judge, Hanumangarh by the plaintiff-respondent. Said suit was registered at No.304/05. In the said suit, summonses were issued and defendant-appellant was directed to appear before the Court on 08.04.2005. For the said purpose, as per the defendant-appellant, he engaged Advocate Rajendra Jain but he (Advocate) did not appear in the Court on 22.07.2005, next date of hearing, therefore, ex parte decree was passed by the trial Court on 08.02.2006 and, subsequently, corrections were made in the decree on 20.02.2006. 4. Case of learned counsel for the appellant is that no information was given by his counsel, therefore, the suit was decreed ex parte and, later on, an application under Order 9, Rule 13 , C.P.C. was filed by the appellant when he received notice for execution of the decree on 23.11.2009. The main crux of argument of the appellant before the trial Court was that his counsel did not inform him with regard to passing of the ex parte decree, therefore, no reply was filed on behalf of the him and as such suit was decreed ex parte. As per learned counsel for the appellant, learned trial Court wrongly rejected the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 , C.P.C. and has committed error while rejecting the application for condonation of delay also. Therefore, it is prayed on behalf of the appellant that order impugned dated 28.05.2009 deserves to be quashed. 5. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against order dated 18.05.2009, again, after delay of 252 days. I have perused the reasons given in the application moved under Section 5, Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Therefore, it is prayed on behalf of the appellant that order impugned dated 28.05.2009 deserves to be quashed. 5. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against order dated 18.05.2009, again, after delay of 252 days. I have perused the reasons given in the application moved under Section 5, Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Upon perusal of the application, it emerges that the reasons advanced for condonation of delay is that appellant is poor person and has to go away from his village for earning livelihood and, as a result of that the appellant could not take steps for filing appeal in time because he was out of station to earn his livelihood. Further, it is also defence of the appellant that he will be rendered landless if ex parte decree is allowed to stand. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the conduct of the appellant is to be seen in this matter. First of all, ex parte decree was 3 passed against him and for setting aside ex parte decree he took plea that his counsel did not inform him with regard to passing of the ex parte decree. But, this fact is also not correct because Danaram plaintiff, in his testimony, stated that after passing ex parte decree on 06.02.2006, he sent registered notice Ex.-2 dated 07.08.2006 before initiating execution proceedings, in which, he has brought to the notice of the defendant-appellant Kashiram that such decree has been passed against him. Further, before this Court also, no cogent reasons have been given in the application filed under Section 5, Limitation Act for condonation of 252 days' delay in filing the instant appeal. In this view of the matter, I am not satisfied by the reasons given in the application filed under Section 5, Limitation Act for condonation of delay. There is, therefore, no force in the application filed under Section 5, Limitation Act. 7. The application filed under Section 5, Limitation Act is accordingly rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******