JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. By the impugned order dated 24.02.2012, the learned Additional District Judge, No.1, Jodhpur has rejected the application of the defendant-appellant filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside of the exparte decree dated 13.07.2006 in Eviction Suit No.48/02 (Sher Singh v. Lotus Education Society & Anr.). 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, Mr. A. Aziz Khan, submitted that service shown on the summon was on some member of the Lotus Education Society, the so-called tenant, therefore, the signatures were not decipherable from the summons and the summons were actually never served on the defendant No.1- Smt. Kamla Devi Parihar. He further submitted that appearance of one Sh. Rajendra Kumar Sudan, Advocate was shown by the learned trial court in the proceedings since 06.08.2001 on the basis of "Vakalatnama" filed by the said Advocate Sh. Rajendra Kumar Sudan, for which he submitted that he (Sh. Rajendra Kuamr Sudan) was never authorised by the present appellant-defendant. He further submitted that the member on whom the said service of summon was effected, was hand-in-gloves with the plaintiff, therefore, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC deserves to be allowed. He also submitted that husband of the present defendant No.1, Smt. Kamla Devi, who is also co-sharer of the suit property and, therefore, there was no question of passing any eviction decree against her. 4. Per contra, Mr. Bhawani Singh Tanwar, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff opposed these submissions and submitted that service since 2001 on the advocate was properly effected, and, so also, the advocate concerned, namely, Sh. Rajendra Kumar Sudan had appeared in the Court on various occasions i.e. on 06.08.2001, 01.09.2007 and 11.10.2001, as would be clear from the para 16 of the impugned order; and he also filed an application under Order 6 Rule 5 and Order 13 read with Section 151 CPC in the court below. He, therefore, submitted that contention raised on behalf of defendant that summons were not properly served on the defendant, is not at all sustainable and as such the exparte decree is justified. 5. Upon a specific question by the Court as to what action has been taken by the defendant against the so-called Secretary/Member of the Education Society, upon whom the said summons were shown to have been served and, so also, the advocate Sh. 5. Upon a specific question by the Court as to what action has been taken by the defendant against the so-called Secretary/Member of the Education Society, upon whom the said summons were shown to have been served and, so also, the advocate Sh. Rajendra Kumar Sudan, who had appeared before the learned trial court so far, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Khan was unable to reply in positive and, therefore, it is clear that no action has been taken against the persons against whom allegations have now sought to be raised in the present misc. appeal. 6. The eviction suit was pending since the year 2001 and the decree was passed in the year 2006. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been rejected on 24.02.2012. More so, only when execution of the decree was undertaken by the decree holder-plaintiff, the defendant appears to have awakened from her slumber and initiated all these proceedings; and for all ten years, she allowed the proceedings to go in their own manner. Once a member of the said society was served with the summons and an advocate had also put in appearance, it is not believable that the present defendant-appellant would not be aware of the eviction proceedings going on against her. The failure on the part of the defendant herself to take any action against the persons, against whom allegations are now made, speaks volume and it is clear that the defendant appellant allowed these proceedings to become final exparte against her for the reasons best known to her. 7. In view of above discussion, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial court has not committed any error in rejecting the application of the defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and the present misc. appeal is found to be devoid of any merit fails and same deserves to be dismissed. 8. The present misc. appeal of the defendant-appellant is accordingly dismissed. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******