MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By this order, I propose to decide the four applications filed by the defendants No.3 and 4, the details of which are as under:

a. I.A. No.9047/2011 filed by the defendant No.3 under Order IX, Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated 10.09.2010.

b. I.A. No.9050/2011 filed by the defendant No.3 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC.

c. I.A. No.9048/2011 filed by the defendant No.4 under Order IX, Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated 10.09.2010.

d. I.A. No.9055/2011 filed by the defendant No.4 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC.

2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the present suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from infringing the trade mark of the plaintiff, passing off and rendition of accounts etc.

3. When the matter was listed first time before Court on 30.08.2005, the summons in the suit and notice in the application were issued to the defendants. On 05.10.2005 counsel for the plaintiff as well as counsel for the defendants No.2 to 4 appeared and prayed for an adjournment on the ground that the matter may be settled and on their request, the matter was adjourned to 30.01.2006. On 30.01.2006, more time was sought by the counsel for the parties for getting the matter settled. On 11.05.2006, counsel for the defendants stated that she had no instructions with regard to settlement and the defendants were directed to file the written statement and reply. Thereafter, nobody appeared on behalf of the defendants on 19.07.2006, 18.08.2006 and 25.08.2006. Therefore, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte on 25.05.2006 and the plaintiff led the ex-parte evidence by filing the affidavit of Mr Ajay Gupta.

4. On 07.12.2007, an application, being I.A. No.14074/2007, under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC was filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint, in view of the changed circumstances as the trade mark „Flight Center?, which was being used by the plaintiff, was registered vide Registration Certificate dated 18.08.2006. The application of the plaintiff was allowed. By order dated 12.05.2008, the amended affidavit of Mr Ajay Gupta and the registration certificate were taken on record.

5. Vide ex-parte judgment dated 10.09.2010, the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed and the defendants were restrained from using the trade mark „Flight Centre? and or using the mark/trading style „Flight Centre? or any deceptive variant in any manner whatsoever in relation to travel and tour services. So far as the rendition of accounts and the payment of damages were concerned, the plaintiff was not able to prove the same.

6. The defendants No.3 and 4 have filed the present applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 10.09.2010 along with the applications for condonation of delay in the filing the same.

7. As far as limitation is concerned, it is stated by the defendants No.3 and 4 that in terms of Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as no summons were properly served on the applicants, the limitation would run from the date of the knowledge of the decree, which came to the knowledge of the applicants only on 18.04.2011.

8. As per the applicants, there is two days delay in filing the applications under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC. The same is condoned for the reasons explained in the application.

9. The plaintiff?s counsel referred the second proviso to Order IX, Rule 13 CPC clearly provides that a decree may not be set aside on a mere irregularity in service of summons, if, it can otherwise be shown that the defendant had sufficient knowledge of the date of hearing and the proceedings. It is submitted that it is not op