ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.5.2011, passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by Smt. Jairo under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC has been rejected. 2. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance. Summons of the suit were sent to Smt. Jairo. On 24.3.2006, it was noticed by the court that notices were served on daughter of the defendant and no one was present. Where-after, the matter was adjourned to 11.5.2006. On 11.5.2006 fresh summons for 29.7.2006 were ordered to be issued. The summons were issued on 16.6.2006 and on 29.7.2006 it was noticed that the lawyers were on strike and that the defendant has been served and the matter was again adjourned. On 9.11.2006, as no one appeared on behalf of Smt. Jairo, the matter was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte against her. Where-after, after recording evidence of the plaintiff, the suit was decreed on 14.8.2008. 3. After the suit was decreed, present application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was filed on 18.4.2009 by the defendant, inter alia, with the averments that the process server of the court had taken her thumb impression, however, the copy of the summons and plaint were not given to her and only date on a slip was given to her. On 29.7.2006, when she visited the court premises along with her grandson-Hariram, the lawyers were on strike and her grandson after taking her thumb impression on few blank papers, left her back to the village. When she made enquiries about the litigation, the grandson assured her that he would look after the said matter and was getting the same attendant. 4. It was contended that if the ex-parte decree was allowed to stand, the same would result in irreparable loss and injury. It was also indicated that the applicant was 85 years old lady and as she has authorised her grandson, who did not take care of the case, the ex-parte decree may be set aside. 5. It was also indicated in the application that from the date of knowledge of ex-parte decree, which she came to know on service of the summons of the execution, the application was within limitation. 6. The application was opposed by the plaintiff - decree holder. 5. It was also indicated in the application that from the date of knowledge of ex-parte decree, which she came to know on service of the summons of the execution, the application was within limitation. 6. The application was opposed by the plaintiff - decree holder. It was indicated that from the defendant's own admission, she was served with the summons and chose not to appear and, therefore, it was not open for her to now seek setting aside of the ex-parte decree. In additional plea it was indicated that the application was not within limitation and, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. In the said application, the trial court recorded evidence wherein, the applicant appeared as AW/1, on behalf of the plaintiff, the process server-Hussain Khan was produced as NAW/1 and plaintiff himself appeared as NAW/2. 8. After hearing the parties, the trial court by its impugned order dated 20.5.2012 came to the conclusion that the applicant was aware of the litigation since the beginning and has filed the application after the execution proceedings were initiated and there was no sufficient explanation for the delay and no application seeking condonation of delay has been filed and consequently, dismissed the application. 9. The appeal was filed on 18.4.2012 and was barred by 244 days limitation, subsequently, Smt. Jairo died on 23.7.2012 and her daughter was taken on record as her legal representative. 10. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned. 11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court committed error in dismissing the application filed by the appellant, inasmuch as, it is apparent from the record that the appellant-Smt. Jairo was not properly served with the summons and she remained dependent on her grandson for attending the case, which resulted in passing of the ex-parte decree. 12. It was submitted that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the appellant as the limitation was not set up as a defense and that even if the application was not filed seeking condonation of delay, the same could not have been dismissed by the trial court. 13. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagmal and Ors. v. Kunwar Lal and Ors. : AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2991. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the trial court. 13. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagmal and Ors. v. Kunwar Lal and Ors. : AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2991. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the trial court. It was submitted that from the material available on record before the trial court, it is apparent that the defendant was well aware of pendency of the litigation and chose not to appear. She was served way back in the year 2006 i.e. on 25.7.2006. On account of her non-appearance, the ex-parte decree was passed on 14.8.2006, where after, the application was filed on 18.4.2009. The appellant has failed to give any plausible explanation for the delay in filing the application. 15. It is further submitted that even otherwise, it is apparent that the defendant-Smt. Jairo has accepted that she had entered into the agreement with the plaintiff and on account of her own admission, nothing remains in the plea now sought to be raised by the appellants and, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. 16. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 17. A bare look at the summon which was served on the applicant - Smt. Jairo reveals that she has put her thumb impression and was identified by Hariram, her grandson. 18. The plea sought to be raised is that the thumb impression though were taken on the summons, neither the copy of the plaint nor the summons were handed over to her and when on 29.7.2006, she went to the court, on account of the strike of the lawyers, the grandson got her thumb impression on some blank papers and despite her repeated enquiries from the grandson she was not informed about the progress of the suit and was assured, he would look after the same. 19. The said plea essentially is not supported by any material on record, inasmuch as, said Hariram - grandson of Smt. Jairo has not been produced for supporting the plea taken by the defendant. Further on behalf of the non-applicant the process server was produced as NAW-1, who specifically indicated that he had served the summons properly on the defendant. 20. The said plea essentially is not supported by any material on record, inasmuch as, said Hariram - grandson of Smt. Jairo has not been produced for supporting the plea taken by the defendant. Further on behalf of the non-applicant the process server was produced as NAW-1, who specifically indicated that he had served the summons properly on the defendant. 20. In the cross-examination the applicant specifically admitted on the merits of the dispute as under : " ;g ckr lgh gS fd vizkFkhZ lrh'k ds lkFk eSaus tehu cspus dk lkSnk fd;k FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd ml lkSnk dk bdjkjukek eSaus lrh'k ds i{k esa fy[kok;k FkkA " 21. In view of the state of material available on record including the fact that Smt. Jairo admitted the execution of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff there does not appear to be any reason able cause for the delay in approaching the court, after the applicant was properly served in the year 2006 itself and after the decree was passed on 14.8.2008. Even if the delay in filing the application is not taken into consideration, the material hereinbefore, indicates that no case is made out for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed against the defendant. 22. So far as the submission regarding trial court dismissing the application, inter alia, on account of non-filing of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is concerned, as already noticed hereinbefore even if the delay in filing the application is ignored, no case is made out by the appellant for setting aside of the ex parte decree. In view thereof, no case is made out for setting aside the ex parte decree in the present appeal. The appeal has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.