THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2053 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 12.03.2009 passed in I.A.No.58 of 2007 in O.S.No.98 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, setting aside the ex parte decree, dated 05.01.2006. The brief facts are that the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.98 of 2005 for perpetual injunction. On the ground that the respondent herein did not contest the matter and was not appearing before the Court below, he was set ex parte. Thereafter, the Court below passed ex parte decree on 05.01.2006. After about one year i.e. on 13.02.2007, I.A.No.58 of 2007 was filed by the respondent under Order IX Rule 13 CPC requesting the Court below to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 05.01.2006. Having considered the material on record, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, as stated supra, by his order, dated 12.03.2009, allowed the said I.A. The same was questioned by the petitioner before this Court by filing the present revision. Though notices were sent to the respondent, the same were not returned served. Hence, this Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to Order IX Rule 13 CPC, an ex parte decree can be set aside, if sufficient cause is shown and to file an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the limitation is 30 days as provided for under Article 123 of the Limitation Act. As per the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., the respondent was not aware of the fact of the said ex parte decree till he received notice from the revenue officials and counting the period from the date of knowledge from the revenue officials, he filed the said I.A. seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. The only point canvassed by the petitioner herein before the Court below is that the said I.A. filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is not supported by any petition seeking condonation of delay. For the reason that within thirty days from the date of knowledge from the revenue officials about passing of the ex parte decree in O.S.No.98 of 2005 on 05.01.2006, as stated supra, the respondent approached the Court below and filed the said I.A. In my considered view, the limitation period shall be reckoned only from the date of knowledge but not from the date of the order and that the same view was expressed by the Court below while allowing the I.A. Further, the Court below did not allow the said I.A. in a routine manner but, however, imposed costs of Rs.2,000/- to be paid by the respondent herein, fixing certain period. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in this civil revision petition, which is thus, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 23rd JULY, 2010. kvni