JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of the parties, this misc. appeal is heard finally. 2. This appeal is directed against order dated 02.09.2011 passed by the District Judge, Udaipur, whereby, the application filed by the appellant-defendants under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed as barred by limitation. 3. The facts in brief are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for a sum of Rs. 1,71,340.69 p. against the appellants for alleged outstanding on account of the transactions entered into between the appellants as principal and the plaintiff as a dealer. The summons of the suit were sent to the appellants, which were duly served and despite service, as nobody appeared, the suit after evidence was led by the plaintiff, was decreed in the following terms:- " ifj.kker% oknh dk okn oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) ,di{kh; rkSj ij ckcr~ :0 1]71]340]69 iSlk lO;; fMdzh fd;k tkrk gSA oknh izfroknhx.k ls ewy jkf'k :0 1]00]493@& ij nkoknk;jh dh fnukad ls olwyh rd 9 izfr'kr okf"kZd dh nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA " 4. It appears that after the execution was laid to the said decree dated 23.08.2002 and the appellants became aware of passing of the ex parte decree, an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC alongwith application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed for seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree and condonation of delay in moving such application. 5. The application was resisted by the respondent-plaintiff and after hearing the parties, the trial court vide its order dated 02.09.2011 came to the conclusion that the appellants were not entitled for condonation of delay, dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently, application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was also dismissed. 6. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that gross injustice has been done to the appellants, inasmuch as, the notices of the suit were in the first instance sent by registered post acknowledgment due and at no stage the same were sent through ordinary court process. It is further submitted that the said notices by registered post were sent at the old registered address of the appellant Company and, therefore, there is no question of the appellant Company being aware of pendency of the said proceedings. It is further submitted that the said notices by registered post were sent at the old registered address of the appellant Company and, therefore, there is no question of the appellant Company being aware of pendency of the said proceedings. It was submitted that in case the ex parte decree is not set aside, the appellants would be condemned unheard and that it was ready to abide by any condition to be imposed by this Court. It was also submitted that after passing of the ex parte decree on 23.08.2002, the appellants became aware of the execution in the year 2008. 7. The counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions and submitted that the conduct of the appellants dis-entitle them to seek any relief from this Court. It was pointed out that when the execution was laid to the ex parte decree dated 23.08.2002, on behalf of the appellants a cheque for the decreetal amount was given by the son of one of the Directors, which cheque was dishonoured and proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pending. It was further submitted that the conduct of the appellants even after becoming aware of the passing of the ex parte decree itself dis-entitle them to seek setting aside ex parte decree as held by the trial court while rejecting application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 9. The summons in the suit were required to be sent by ordinary process as well in the first instance as that would have indicated the fact of change of Registered Office of the defendant. 10. Further, there appears to be substance in the contention of the counsel for the appellants that even the registered notice was sent at the registered office of the Company, which in fact had been changed then and, therefore, the same could not have formed the basis for initiating ex parte proceedings against the appellants. 11. So far as the rejection of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed alongwith application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC is concerned, the same has been rejected on account of failure on part of the appellants in not explaining 'day to day delay', which apparently appears to be harsh. 12. 11. So far as the rejection of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed alongwith application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC is concerned, the same has been rejected on account of failure on part of the appellants in not explaining 'day to day delay', which apparently appears to be harsh. 12. In view of the above discussion, the ends of justice would meet if the ex parte decree dated 23.08.2002 is set aside on the condition that the appellants deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- within a period of four weeks with the trial court. The said amount would be disbursed to the plaintiff on it filing an undertaking that in case the suit filed by it is dismissed/decree is passed for less than the said amount, it would restitute the said amount within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of such decree by the trial court.Subject to the appellants fulfilling the above condition, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 23.08.2002 passed in Civil Original Suit No.19 of 2000, International Agro Oil Industries Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s. Suwarna Enterprises passed by District Judge, Udaipur is set aside and the suit is restored back to the file of District Judge, Udaipur, who would proceed with the trial of the suit as expeditiously as possible. It shall be required of the appellant-defendants to file written statement within a period of six weeks from today before the trial court.Petition Allowed. *******