JUDGMENT : SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. This second appeal is barred by limitation by 4427 days which is about 13 years. 2. Heard counsel for both the parties. 3. Learned counsel appearing for applicant-appellant submits that both the orders passed by the trial court as well as by the appellate court were ex-parte. He submits that the provisions of Order 5 Rule 20 CPC were not followed before making publication of notices. It is his submission that he has come to know only from some other source with regard to the execution proceedings being taken by the respondents. It is his submission that the appellant was residing at Village Nokha, District Bikaner while the address in the plaint as well as in the appeal was that of Bikaner, and therefore, there was no occasion for the notices being received by the appellant. The delay caused in filing the second appeal is therefore, on bona fide reasons and deserves to be condoned. 4. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in the suit proceedings, the notices were sent several times but could not be served, thereafter, the court passed an order for publication and accordingly, the notices were served through publication by following procedure and the paper which was published was circulated in the entire district of Bikaner, which included the Village Nokha and a certificate in this regard has been placed on record along with the additional affidavit by the respondents to show that the concerned newspaper namely ‘Dainik Yugpaksh’ was being published since 1977 in entire district of Bikaner, Tehsil headquarters, villages and different Kasbas. The editor of the same has issued a certificate, which is a part of the additional affidavit. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant was having full knowledge of the case and was keeping a regular track of the case. He has taken this Court to the application filed by the appellant under Section 5 where in Para No. 2, the applicant-appellant submits that he is in possession of the property in question. The property in question is situated at Bikaner address where the notices were initially issued and thus, once the appellant admits that he was having possession of the property in question, presumption has to be drawn that he had been avoiding service inspite of notices being served at the address of property in question. The property in question is situated at Bikaner address where the notices were initially issued and thus, once the appellant admits that he was having possession of the property in question, presumption has to be drawn that he had been avoiding service inspite of notices being served at the address of property in question. Learned counsel further submits that the in the execution proceedings also, the appellant has been avoiding service and even till date, he was not putting appearance while he has stated in this application before this Court under Section 5 that he has come to know about the execution proceedings pending before the court against him. Thus, it is a case where the appellant has harassing the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that once the notices have been duly published in the newspaper, a presumption of service can be drawn and therefore, it can not be said that the appellant was not having knowledge of the case pending. Learned counsel has further argued that no application was moved by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings either before the trial court or before the appellate court. 5. I have considered the submissions. 6. This Court finds that there is a gross delay of almost 13 years in filing the present second appeal. No attempt has been made by the appellant to move appropriate application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside ex-parte proceedings taken against him. It is also noticed that so far as the trial court is concerned, the trial court had passed decree against the plaintiff which has been reversed by the appellate court, and thus, even at the appellate court when the notices were issued, the appellant has avoided service since the decree was passed in his favour before the trial court. In execution proceedings also, he has failed to put his appearance. Thus, he can be safely said to be a person watching from the stand the proceedings of the court. 7. However, the law does not help such persons and they cannot turn around and come after 13 years and file appeal, once they come to know that execution proceedings have been initiated. It is moreover noticed that the present appeal is a second appeal, which would only examine the substantial questions of law. 7. However, the law does not help such persons and they cannot turn around and come after 13 years and file appeal, once they come to know that execution proceedings have been initiated. It is moreover noticed that the present appeal is a second appeal, which would only examine the substantial questions of law. However, the appellant has not participated in the proceedings below. 8. Accordingly, the appeal as well as application under Section 5 for condonation of delay are dismissed being devoid of merits and time barred.