ORDER : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.05.2022 passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No.50/2021 whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC as filed on behalf of applicant-defendant No.1 was dismissed. 2. Vide the application, it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the notice/summons in the suit were never served on him and therefore, he could not appear before the learned Trial Court on the date fixed for hearing. It was submitted that the plaintiff intentionally filed the wrong address of applicant- defendant No.1 whereas he did not reside on said address. On the said address i.e. A-2/20, GDDIDC Somnath Industrial Estate, Daman (U.T) a factory in the name of ‘National Traders’ was running whereas the factory of the applicant was situated/running at A-2/21 with the name of ‘Apple Polymers’. The manager and the labourers of the applicant worked in the said factory i.e. ‘Apple Polymers’ and he himself had his business in the name of ‘Popular Stores’ at the address mentioned at Mumbai. Therefore, the notice as served by the plaintiff in the suit proceedings on the address at A-2/20 cannot be termed to be a proper service on applicant. 3. It was further submitted that even the report of the process server was to the effect that the applicant was not found on the said address. It is only when the notice in the execution proceedings was served on him that he came to know about the decree dated 02.09.2020. It was submitted that co-incidentally he was available at Daman on 02.01.2021, the date when the notice of the execution proceedings was delivered at ‘National Traders’ and the staff of ‘National Traders’ handed over the same to him. Soon after the said receipt, he applied for the certified copies of the relevant documents and on 27.01.2021, filed the application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. 4. With the above averments, a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree dated 02.09.2020 was made. 5. The learned Trial Court while proceeding on to dismiss the application, recorded the following findings:- (i) As per the track status of the notice sent through registered post, the notices/summons as sent to defendant No.1-Navneet Shah were delivered on 06.06.2019. 4. With the above averments, a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree dated 02.09.2020 was made. 5. The learned Trial Court while proceeding on to dismiss the application, recorded the following findings:- (i) As per the track status of the notice sent through registered post, the notices/summons as sent to defendant No.1-Navneet Shah were delivered on 06.06.2019. It was after more than a period of two months of the said report that the order to proceed ex parte was passed. (ii) Further, the decree was passed on 02.09.2020, that is, approximately after a period of one year from 06.06.2019 i.e. the date of service of notice on defendant No.1. (iii) Report dated 14.08.2019 of the Superintendent of the Civil Court, Daman also reflected the notice to have been served on defendant No.1. (iv) The notices issued in execution proceedings No.260/2020 were served on the applicant on 21.12.2020 on the same address as reflected in the plaint. (v) No document in support of the application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC was filed on behalf of the applicant. (vi) No sufficient reason for delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC was assigned and hence, the delay was uncondonable. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings as recorded by the learned Trial Court are totally erroneous as not a single document was available on record before the Court to reveal that the plaintiff had anything to do with the factory premise situated at A-2/20. To substantiate his submission, counsel relied upon certain documents annexed along with the stay application as filed by him. Learned counsel submits that the said documents reveal that defendant No.1 was a partner of the firm ‘Apple Polymers’ situated at A-2/21 and not of ‘National Traders’ situated at A-2/20. The ‘list of partners’ of both the firms have been annexed along with the stay application. 7. Counsel further submitted that the notices/summons in the suit proceedings were never served on defendant No.1 and he came to know about the ex parte decree dated 02.09.2020 for the first time when notice in execution proceedings was served on him. Therefore, the ex parte decree deserves to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his submissions, relied upon the following judgments: (i) C.K. Lokesh Vs. P.E. Panduranga Naidu; (1996) 11 SCC 353. Therefore, the ex parte decree deserves to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his submissions, relied upon the following judgments: (i) C.K. Lokesh Vs. P.E. Panduranga Naidu; (1996) 11 SCC 353. (ii) In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation; (2022) 3 SCC 117 (iii) Rabindra Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab & Ors.; (2008) 7 SCC 663 . (iv) Amritpal Kaur Vs. Sanjay Bhakar & Anr.; S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1145/2022 (decided on 22.07.2022)(Rajasthan High Court). 9. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that defendant No.1 was very much connected with the firm- ‘National Traders’ situated at A-2/20. He submitted that in the complete application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC defendant No.1 has not even denied the said fact and has nowhere stated that he was not connected in any manner with National Traders. In support of his submission, counsel relied upon certain documents annexed along with the reply to the stay application. First is the postal receipt of a registered post sent by one ‘Unify and Unify machine tools’ addressed to defendant-Navneet G Shah on the address of A-2/20 and the track status of the said post reflecting the item to have been delivered to the addressee i.e. Mr. Navneet Shah. Second is the copy of the web-page of firm ‘National Traders’ reflecting its proprietor to be Navneet G Shah. 10. Counsel further submitted that even the track status of registered notices as sent in the suit proceedings reported the notice to have been delivered on the addressee and hence, the finding of the learned Trial Court to the effect that the notice was duly served, does not deserve any interference. 11. Counsel lastly submitted that the service of notices in the execution proceedings on defendant No.1 on the same address leaves no doubt that A-2/20 was also one of the business places of defendant No.1 and the notice had been duly served on him on the said address. 12. Heard the counsels and perused the record. 13. A bare perusal of the order dated 17.08.2019 in the suit proceedings makes it clear that the Court directed to proceed ex parte against defendant No.1 on the premise that as per the delivery track status of the registered notice sent to defendant No.1, the same was delivered on 06.06.2019. 12. Heard the counsels and perused the record. 13. A bare perusal of the order dated 17.08.2019 in the suit proceedings makes it clear that the Court directed to proceed ex parte against defendant No.1 on the premise that as per the delivery track status of the registered notice sent to defendant No.1, the same was delivered on 06.06.2019. Despite of the said registered notice been served, none appeared for defendant No.1 and hence, Court proceeded ex parte against him. For ready reference, the order sheet dated 17.08.2019 is reproduced as under: vf/koDrk oknh mifLFkrA ^^izfroknh la[;k 2 egkohj dqekj dh vksj ls odhy Jh fodkl jkBh us vk;Unk odkyrukek is'k djus dh v.MjVsfdax nhA tokcnkok gsrq le; pkgkA izfroknh la[;k 1 uouhr dks jft- uksfVl Hkstus dh jlhn o uksfVl Delivery jftLV?h Hkh is'k dh tks 'kkehy i=koyh gksA izfroknh la[;k 1 dks Delivery Track ds vuqlkj 6-6-19 dks leu izkIr gks pqdk gSA 2 ekg ls vf/kd dk le; gks pqdk gSA izfroknh la-1 vkt vuqifLFkr gSA mldh vksj ls vkt dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA izfroknh dks lqcg ls vkokts yxokbZ tk jgh gSA bl le; 4-00 ih,e gks pqds gSA vr% izfroknh la[;k 1 ds fo:) ,d i{kh; dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tkrh gSA i=koyh okLrs tokc nkok izfroknh la[;k 2 gsrq fnukad 6-9-19 dks is'k gksA ^ 14. The postal receipt dated 04.06.2019 and the Track report dated 06.06.2019 of the said consignment, as available on record reflects the report “Item Delivery Confirmed”. Meaning thereby, the notice sent through registered post was received served on the address as mentioned. 15. However, the report of the process server on the notice sent through ordinary post, was to the effect that the addressee was not available in town. Therefore, the report dated 14.08.2019 of the Superintendent, Civil Court, Daman to the effect that summons/notices returned duly served, cannot be said to be correct. 16. But then, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the report of the process server does not state that the address was incorrect or that no person of the name (Navneet Shah) was available on the address. The report only stated the addressee not to be available in town at that point of time. Meaning thereby, it cannot be concluded that defendant No.1 had nothing to do with ‘National Traders’ and the address as reflected by the plaintiff in the plaint was incorrect. The report only stated the addressee not to be available in town at that point of time. Meaning thereby, it cannot be concluded that defendant No.1 had nothing to do with ‘National Traders’ and the address as reflected by the plaintiff in the plaint was incorrect. 17. The above opinion of this Court is strengthened by the documents as placed on record by learned counsel for the plaintiff along with the stay application and the written submissions. The web page of firm ‘National Traders’ reflects Navneet G Shah to be the proprietor of the said firm and the address of the firm in the said web page is reflected to be “A-2/2020 GDDIDC, Somnath Industrial Estate, Daman” i.e. the same address as reflected in the plaint. Interestingly, the said document has not been controverted by the appellant. 18. During the course of arguments, when the above document was pointed out, this Court directed learned counsel for the respondent to open the web page of the firm ‘National Traders’ before the Court. The same was done in the presence of learned counsel for the appellant and a bare perusal of the same reflected that Navneet G Shah has been shown to be the proprietor of the firm ‘National Traders’ and address of the firm is also reflected to be “A-2/2020 GDDIDC, Somnath Industrial Estate, Daman”. Learned counsel for the appellant was not in a position to explain/clarify/justify the above fact. 19. Further, the receipt of the notice in the execution proceedings by defendant No.1 himself is not disputed. The reason as assigned by defendant No.1 of him being available on the said date coincidentally and been handed over the post by the staff of ‘National Traders’, cannot be said to be tenable. Had the staff of ‘National Traders’ handed over the notice of execution proceedings to him, there is no reason as to why the earlier summon/notice of the suit proceeding would not have been handed over to him. Furthermore, had the notice been handed over by any staff of ‘National Traders’ to Navneet G Shah, the report of the postman would not have reflected the notice to have been delivered to Navneet G Shah. 20. Furthermore, had the notice been handed over by any staff of ‘National Traders’ to Navneet G Shah, the report of the postman would not have reflected the notice to have been delivered to Navneet G Shah. 20. In view of the above facts, it is crystal clear on record that ‘National Traders’ is also one of the business places of defendant No.1 and it cannot be concluded that he had nothing to do with the said firm. 21. Even relying on the documents as placed on record by the appellant himself, a bare perusal of the ‘list of partners’ of both the firms reveal that they are closely related. 22. In overall anyalysis, this Court is of the clear opinion that even if it is assumed that there was irregularity in the service of summon on defendant No.1, it cannot be concluded that he was not aware of the present suit proceedings and did not have any notice of the date of hearing. 23. As held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Poddar and Ors. Vs. Union Bank of India; (2008) 2SCC 326 an ex- parte decree cannot be set aside even if it is established that there was irregularity in service of summons. Therein the Court observed that if the Court is convinced that the defendant had otherwise knowledge of the proceedings and he could have appeared and answered the plaintiff’s claim, he cannot put forward the ground of non-service of summons for setting aside ex-parte decree passed against him by invoking Rule 13 of Order 9, CPC of the Code. 24. So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant are concerned, the same are clearly distinguishable as Rabindra Singh (supra) was a case wherein the publication of the summon for substituted service on the defendant was not made in a newspaper circulated in the City/State where the defendant resided. Amritpal Kaur (supra) was a case wherein the matter was transferred to some other Court and no adequate information of the same was given to the defendant. It is in those circumstances, the Court held that there was a sufficient cause for non appearance of the defendant therein on the date fixed for hearing. 25. Amritpal Kaur (supra) was a case wherein the matter was transferred to some other Court and no adequate information of the same was given to the defendant. It is in those circumstances, the Court held that there was a sufficient cause for non appearance of the defendant therein on the date fixed for hearing. 25. In view of the above overall analysis and observations, it cannot be concluded that there was no proper service of notice on defendant No.1 in the suit proceedings. The averment made on behalf of defendant No.1 to the effect that he came to know about the decree dated 02.09.2020 only after service of the notice in the execution proceedings cannot be relied upon. The finding as recorded by the learned Trial Court being totally in consonance with law and material available on record does not deserve any interference and the appeal is hence, dismissed. 26. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.