JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (d) C.P.C. has been filed by the appellants aggrieved against the order dated 30/4/2016 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Anoopgarh District Sriganganagar, whereby, the application filed by the appellants under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 30/7/2008 has been rejected. 2. A money suit seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,85,452/- along with interest amounting to Rs. 3,63,443/- was filed by the respondent firm against the appellants before the District court, Anoopgarh. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 30/4/2008, whereby, the trial court ordered for payment of a sum of Rs. 2,85,452/- to the respondent firm and awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a. w.e.f. 18/1/2001. 3. An application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was filed by the appellants on 11/8/2011 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay for setting aside the ex-parte judgment & decree dated 30/7/2008. It was claimed that the appellants did not receive the summons in the suit and, therefore, they were precluded from appearing before the court and hence could not defend the suit. It was claimed that the appellants were not residing at the address given in the suit and, therefore, substituted service by way of publication cannot be taken as sufficient service. It was also claimed that the appellant nos. 1 and 2 did not appoint any advocate including the counsel, who had filed 'Vakalatnama' and that their signatures were forged. It was claimed that the appellants came to know of the ex-parte decree when the appellant no. 2 visited Sriganganagar and partners of respondent boasted that they have obtained the decree against them and would be executing the same. Based on the said averments, delay in filing the application was sought to be condoned along with setting aside of the ex-parte decree. 4. The application was opposed by the respondent. 5. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that on 16/5/2001, on behalf of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 Vakalatnama' by Shri Dinesh Rankawat was filed and on 29/1/2002, qua appellant no. 3, summons were ordered to be published in Punjab Kesari, Delhi Edition and after publication of summons, the matter was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte. The counsel for defendant nos. 1 and 2 Vakalatnama' by Shri Dinesh Rankawat was filed and on 29/1/2002, qua appellant no. 3, summons were ordered to be published in Punjab Kesari, Delhi Edition and after publication of summons, the matter was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte. The counsel for defendant nos. 1 and 2 continued to appear till 19/11/2005 and on 17/1/2006 when no one appeared for the defendant nos. 1 and 2, ex-parte proceedings were initiated. In view of the fact that counsel had appeared on behalf of appellant nos. 1 and 2 and service on appellant no. 3 was effected by way of substituted service, the trial court found that there was no reason indicated in the application for the delay of over three years in filing the application seeking condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the application. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the trial court committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the appellants. It was claimed that the appellant nos. 1 and 2 never engaged counsel, who had filed 'Vakalatnama' and they were not served. Further submissions were made that in any case, appellant no. 3-Moti Lal was served through substituted service by publication of notices in Delhi, whereas, notices should have been published at Bhatinda and as the publication was contrary to the provisions of Order 5, Rule 20 CPC, the same could not have been considered as proper service. Further submissions were made that the appellant no. 1 is a sick industrial company under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and, therefore, no decree could have been passed against the said company. 7. Learned counsel appearing on caveat for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. It was submitted that all the appellants were duly served and there was no reason for them to file the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC after they chose not to contest the suit and, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. A perusal of the judgment dated 30/7/2008 passed by the trial court reveals that the trial court specifically noticed that defendant nos. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. A perusal of the judgment dated 30/7/2008 passed by the trial court reveals that the trial court specifically noticed that defendant nos. 3 and 4, Moti Lal and Girdhari Lal, despite service did not appear and, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them on 11/7/2002 and qua defendant nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the company and Sadhu Ram, it was indicated that said defendants initially appeared before the court and since on 17/1/2006 no one appeared, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them as well. Once the decree was passed on 30/7/2008, it appears that the appellants did not care to take proceedings for getting the ex-parte decree set aside in time. The plea raised by the appellant nos. 1 and 2 i.e. company and Sadhu Ram that they did not engage any counsel and that the advocate appeared on their behalf before the trial court was based on forged signatures on the 'Vakalatnama' appears to be too far fetched inasmuch as despite making such a fantastic allegation against the counsel, no steps have been taken by the appellants against the counsel, who unauthorisedly appeared on their behalf. The appearance was made before the trial court on 16/5/2001 and the counsel continued to appear on their behalf till 19/1/2005 and stopped appearing w.e.f. 17/1/2006, when ex-parte proceedings were initiated. The very fact that the counsel had appeared for over 4½ years on behalf of the appellants, it cannot be said that appearance was without any reason and unauthorized. Further, the fact that ex-parte decree was thereafter passed by the trial court on 30/7/2008 i.e. almost after 2½ years also does not indicate any conspiracy and/or wrong doing on the part of plaintiff and/or the counsel, as alleged. 10. The plea that notices were wrongly published in the Newspaper at Delhi is also baseless inasmuch as the address of the appellant no. 3-Moti Lal was indicated as 18-A, Anand Parbat, Rohtak Road, Delhi and the very fact that in the application filed before the lower court and in the present appeal also the address of appellant no.3 is indicated as 18-A, Anand Parbat, Rohtak Road, Delhi, necessarily means that the appellant no. 3-Moti Lal was indicated as 18-A, Anand Parbat, Rohtak Road, Delhi and the very fact that in the application filed before the lower court and in the present appeal also the address of appellant no.3 is indicated as 18-A, Anand Parbat, Rohtak Road, Delhi, necessarily means that the appellant no. 3 is a resident of Delhi only and, therefore, the publication of notice in Delhi edition cannot be questioned by the appellants. 11. In view of the above, there is no substance in the submissions made by counsel for the appellants, the appellants have failed to indicate any cogent reason for their nonappearance before the trial court and for filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC after almost three years of passing of the decree by the trial court. 12. In view thereof, the trial court was justified in rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequentially the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. 13. So far as the submission pertaining to the fact that appellant no. 1 Company is a sick company, the said aspect has no implication in so far as the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC and/or Section 5 of the Limitation Act is concerned and, therefore, the said submission also does not aid the case of the appellants. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.