The appellants herein had filed a miscellaneous petition under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree. The said miscellaneous petition was filed after a delay and hence, the petition was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. The Trial Court had ordered notice to the respondent in the petition, who had appeared before the Court and filed objections to the petition, as well as to the interim application seeking condonation of delay. Subsequently, when the interim application was listed for hearing, the Court has been pleased to reject the application for condonation of delay and consequently, the main petition. The appellant questions this action on the part of the Trial Court and urges the following circumstance which according to the appellant, the Court below has failed to take into consideration, viz., that the service of summons in the original suit was by recourse to substituted service by way of paper publication and hence, seeking condonation of delay would be governed by Article 123 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides for the period limitation in respect of an