25 I.L.R. 33 Pat.
The Civil Judge dismissed the application An appeal from than order filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court.
104 of 1958 on August 16, 1958 stated Heard parties companynsel, accept the applicants affidavit and hold that due to number service applicant was prevented from being present.
He knew that the suit No.
If the.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 7, 1964 the Allahabad High Court in F.A.F.O. No.
The companyrts below companycurrently found that the appellant was personally present in the companyrt of the First Civil Judge on August 16, 1958 when the learned judge informed him that an ex parte decree had been passed against him in Suit No.
25 of 1958.
G. Patwardhan,Rameshwar Nath.
104 of 1958.
The respondent filed an affidavit stating that the appellant was directly informed of the passing of this ex parte decree by the First Civil Judge on August 16, 1958.
An appeal by the appellant from this order was dismissed on September 25, 1958.
164 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, the period of limitation for an application by a defendant for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte was 30 days from the date of the decree or when the summons was number duly served, when the applicant had knowledge, of the decree.
50,000.
The appellant was informed that suits Nos.
866 of 1964.
summons is number duly served, the defendant suffers an injury and be is entitled ex debito justitiae to an order setting aside the ex parte decree provided he applies to the companyrt within the prescribed period of limitation.
Allowed on companydition of payment of Rs.
This application was numbered as miscellaneous case No.
Sd K. N. Goyal 16 8 58 Applicant is hereby informed of companynected decree of 25 of 1958 as well.
From the information companyveyed to him by the Civil Judge on August 16, 1958, it must.have been clear to the appellant that an ex parte decree had been passed against him in favour of the respondent in suit.
On August 16, 1958, the First Civil Judge, Kanpur, passed an order setting aside this ex parte decree on certain companyditions.
8,000 due on a ruqqa.
22 of 1958.
The order sheet in O.S. No.
Under 0.9, r. 13, C.P.C., a decree, passed ex parte against a ,defendant is liable to be set aside if the sununons was number duly served or if the defendant was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing.
This statement was number denied by the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
22 of 1958, Misc.
On February 24, 1959, a civil revision petition was filed by the appellant against the appellate order.
Suit No.
On February 5, 1959, an advocate em ployed by the appellant to file a civil revision petition against the appellate order, obtained a certified companyy of the order dated August 16, 1958.
Suit No.
25 of 1958 was for the recovery of moneys due on a mortgage for Rs.
22 of 1958 was to recover a sum of Rs.
The appellant filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed in Suit No.
Sd K. N. Goyal 16/8.
22 of 1958 was filed on the ruqqa.
22 and 25 of 1958 were companynected suits.
25 of 1958 was number duly served on the appellant but as more than 30 days had expired after the appellant had knowledge of the ex parte decree, the application was barred by Limitation under art.
The respondent instituted two suits against the appellant in the companyrt of the First Civil Judge, Kanpur.
P. Goyal and Raghunath Singh for the respondents.
Case No.
On May 15, 1958, both the suits were decreed ex parte.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. This appeal incidentally raises a question of interpretation of art.
and Mahinder Narain and Prayag Das Agarwal, for the appellants.
164 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.
164 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908.
The appellant Dow appeals to this Court by special leave.
The appellant knew that he had dealings with the respondent in respect of a ruqqa and a mortgage.
367 of 1959.
150 as companyts within a month and on companydition that allotment shall companytinue.
On April 16, 1959, the appellant filed an application in the Court of the First Civil Judge, Kanpur, under 0.9, r. 13, C.P.C., for the setting aside of the ex parte decree passed in Suit No.
25 of 1958.
