Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This is an appeal by the defendants under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth 'the CPC') challenging the order dated 18/06/2013 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur in M.J.C. No. 7/2012, by which the application filed by the appellants/defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 8-11-2010 passed in Civil Suit No. 34-A/2009 and their application for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree have been rejected by the trial Court. The facts in brief, necessary for adjudication of this appeal, are as under:--

(1.1) The respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs herein filed a suit, being Civil Suit No. 34-A/2009 for declaration of title and permanent injunction on 24.08.2009, in which, the trial Court directed issuance of notice by ordinary mode as well as registered post on 26.08.2009 and the case was fixed for 23.09.2009. On 23.09.2009 the trial Court recorded in the order sheet that notice to the appellants/defendants by registered post has not been served as their address is incorrect and the case was fixed on 22.10.2009. On 22.10.2009, the trial Court directed issuance of notice by registered post and fixed the dated on 6.1.2010. Before the date of hearing i.e. on 25.11.2009 respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs filed application under Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC for substituted service through paper publication. The said application was allowed by the trial Court and directed for service of notice to the present appellants/defendants through paper publication. Process fee was paid and ultimately, the notice was served by paper publication but no one appeared on behalf of the appellants/defendants on 18.3.2010, present defendants were declared ex parte and ultimately ex parte decree was passed on 8.11.2010.

(1.2) Present appellants/defendants filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stating inter alia that they have not received any summons by ordinary means as well as by registered post from the trial Court and they are illiterate person and the circulation of Deshbandhu newspaper is very low in their area and immediately after getting information on 26.06.2012 they obtained certified copy and documents from the all concerned and, thereafter, filed instant application for setting aside ex parte decree alongwith an application for condonation of delay and also filed affidavit in support thereof, which was opposed by respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs holding that there is deliberate delay after coming to know about the impugned decree.

2. Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants would submit that the trial Court has committed legal error in rejecting both the applications filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. Per contra, Shri J.R. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs No. 1 & 2 would submit that the trial Court is absolutely justified in rejecting the defendants' application as even after the knowledge of the decree the appeal has not been filed within time.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the rival submissions made therein and also perused the record of the trial Court.

5. It is an admitted fact on record that on 26.08.2009, the trial Court directed that summons be served to the defendants by ordinary means as well as by registered post. Service report so far as ordinary mode is concerned, in the order sheet dated 23.09.2009, the trial Court simply recorded a note that summons sent to the appellants/defendants by registered post has not been served as the address is incorrect and the case was fixed on 22.10.2009 for issuance of the notice by registered post. On that day, the trial Court directed issuance of summons again by ordi