ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. Appellants have preferred this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (d) CPC against order dated 21st of April 2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court'). By the order impugned, learned trial Court has rejected the application of appellants under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 7th of July 1994, passed in Civil Suit No.103/1991 for specific performance of contract filed by the respondents. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to this appeal are that appellants, after receiving notices for execution of decree dated 7th of July 1994, made endeavour before leaned trial Court for setting aside ex-parte decree. On behalf of appellants, an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was filed, precisely, on the ground that summons of the suit were not properly served on them. As the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was filed belatedly, the appellants also laid an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The application aforesaid is contested by respondents by filing reply to the same. The learned trial Court after considering rival submission, by the order impugned rejected the application of appellants under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused impugned order and also scanned record of the case. 4. It is not in dispute that on behalf of appellants, application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC was filed before the learned trial Court after receiving notice of execution but then precisely appellants have taken shelter of the ground that summons of the suit were not properly served on them. It is also urged on their behalf that they came to know about ex-parte decree only on receipt of notice of the execution. The learned trial Court although in the impugned order has observed that summons were properly served and appellants were aware about the proceedings but the said finding has not been recorded after taking evidence of rival parties. 5. Looking to the nature of suit, which was for specific performance of contract where stakes of the rival parties are high, learned trial Court ought to have resorted to the procedure of taking evidence in the matter before deciding application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. 5. Looking to the nature of suit, which was for specific performance of contract where stakes of the rival parties are high, learned trial Court ought to have resorted to the procedure of taking evidence in the matter before deciding application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. There remains no quarrel that learned trial Court has not rejected the application for setting aside ex-parte decree solely on the ground of delay but has rejected the same on merits, therefore, in that situation, it ought to have followed the prescribed procedure while deciding application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. 6. It is really strange that despite service none has appeared for the respondents to defend this appeal. Be that as it may, upon examining the impugned order, I feel persuaded that the same is laconic and cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. Impugned order passed by learned trial Court is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court for deciding the application of appellants under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC afresh strictly in accordance with law. As the matter is very old one, the learned trial Court is expected to decide the application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the record. 8. Let record of case be sent back to the learned trial Court forthwith.