JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant-defendant has filed this appeal for assailing the order dated 17.04.2013 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur whereby, his application for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC was rejected. 2. The facts apposite for the propose of this appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff instituted a civil suit against the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,34,931.25/-. In the suit after service of summons on the appellant/defendant, the learned Court below preceded exparte on 11.01.2005 and eventually, the suit was decreed ex-parte against the appellant on 28.02.2005. Feeling disdained by the ex-parte judgment and decree, the appellant laid an application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree in April 2009. Along with the application, prayer was also made for condonation of delay by way of filing separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the application, it is interallia averred by the appellant that summons issued by the Court were not properly served on the appellant and he came to know about the ex-parte decree on receiving a notice dated 28.02.2009 under Order 21, Rule 41 CPC. It is also stated in the application that soon after receiving notice dated 20.02.2009, appellant made endeavor for obtaining requisite certified copies and immediately thereafter, the application has been filed. In the supporting application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, almost identical averments are made for seeking condonation of delay. 3. The application for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree was contested by the respondent and a detailed reply was submitted. The respondent-plaintiff also contested application for condonation of delay. 4. The learned Court below after hearing the rival parties has recorded a finding of fact that summons issued by the Court were served on the appellant and non appearance of the appellant was not bonafide. The learned Court below has also repelled the contention of the appellant that neither he is owner nor properitior of M/s. Raj Paints House (defendant) by observing that if he is having no nexus with M/s.Raj Paint House then why he is seeking relief of setting aside of ex-parte judgment and decree. The learned Court below has also repelled the contention of the appellant that neither he is owner nor properitior of M/s. Raj Paints House (defendant) by observing that if he is having no nexus with M/s.Raj Paint House then why he is seeking relief of setting aside of ex-parte judgment and decree. While recording this finding, the learned Court below has held in the impugned order that appellant was aware about the proceedings and despite service of summons he has not chosen to appear for contesting the suit. That apart, while taking cognizance of appellants admission that he came to know about passing of ex-parte decree on 21.02.2009, the learned Court below has taken exception to the conduct of the appellant as to why the present application has been filed after a lapse of more than two months i.e. on 23.04.2009 without explaining delay of this two months period. On the strength of this finding, the learned Court below has declined the prayer of the appellant for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree. 5. I have persauaded the impugned order with birds eye view. In my considered opinion, the learned Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. The legal position is no more res-integra that for invoking Order 9, Rule 13 CPC an incumbent is required to prove that the summons was not duly served or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. 6. In the second proviso, it is specifically provided that ex-parte decree is not liable to be set aside merely on the ground of irregularity in service of summons. The complete text of second proviso to Rule 13 Order 9 CPC is reproduced as under:- "Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiffs claim." 7. The learned Court below on examining the matter in the light of the legislative intent has found that it was not a case of non service of summons on the appellant nor it was a case where appellant was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearance before the Court. The learned Court below on examining the matter in the light of the legislative intent has found that it was not a case of non service of summons on the appellant nor it was a case where appellant was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearance before the Court. The alleged assertion of the appellant about the irregularity in service cannot be set out a ground for annulment of ex-parte decree is also clear from second proviso to Order 9, Rule 13 CPC (supra). 8. Thus, viewed from any angle, in my considered opinion, the impugned order is neither infirm nor perverse in the given circumstance and the learned Court below has exercised its discretion judiciously for non suiting the appellant in his pursuit for setting aside ex-parte decree.Resultantly, this appeal lacks in merits and the same is accordingly, dismissed, summarily.Appeal dismissed. *******