CR No.2852 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 29.7. 2011 Pawan Kumar ...Petitioner VERSUS Ram Pal …Respondent CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.RS Budhwar, Advocate for the petitioner Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) This revision is directed against the order dated 3.2.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula dismissing an appeal against the order dated 28.8.2009 passed by Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Panchkula vide which application under Order 9 Rule 13 has been dismissed being barred by limitation. The facts leading to the filing of the present revision are being noticed here under. The petitioner herein was defendant in a suit for specific performance filed by the respondent. It is admitted case that the petitioner was served in the said case. He appeared and the case was adjourned for filing of written statement. The defendant thereafter absented and an ex-parte order was passed on 28.11.1990. On proceeding ex-parte against the defendant- petitioner, the trial court passed the ex-parte decree on 17.3.1999. This CR No.2852 of 2011 2 decree was later on modified vide order dated 31.7.2000. The petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings and the order modifying the decree on 7.12.2002. Respondent-decree holder resisted the application. The trial court framed as many as six issues, including that the application is barred by limitation. After allowing the parties to lead evidence and hearing the parties, the application came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.8.2009 on the ground of limitation as also on the question of maintainability. Aggrieved of the order of the trial court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Panchkula. The appeal also came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 3.11.2011. Both the courts below have declared the application barred by limitation. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the petitioner acquired knowledge of the passing of the ex-parte decree in the year 2002, he filed the application for setting aside the decree. It is admitted case of the petitioner that no application for condonation of delay was ever filed. The period of limitation for setting aside ex-parte decree is governed by Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which reads as under:- Description of application Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run XXX XXX XXX 123.To set aside a decree Thirty Days The date of the passed ex parte or to decree or where re-hear an appeal the summons or decreed or heard notice was not ex-parte. duly served, when the applicant had knowledge of the decree. CR No.2852 of 2011 3 From the above provisions, it is abundantly clear that the period of limitation is 30 days which commences from the date of passing of the decree. However, where the summons are not duly served, the limitation commences from the date of acquiring knowledge of the decree. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner had appeared in the case and thereafter absented. Thus, the period of limitation for filing application for setting aside the ex-pate decree/order commences from the date of passing of the decree and not from the date of knowledge. In the absence of any application for condonation of delay, both the courts below have rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground of limitation. I find no infirmity, legal or factual in the impugned orders. Dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 29.7. 2011 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 4