IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.588 of 2009 Kanhaiya Tiwary, S/o late Nand Kumar Tiwary, resident of village- Chandawa, P.S.- Ara Nawada, P.O.- Chandwa, District- Bhojpur. ….Plaintiff-Opp. Party…..Petitioner. Versus 1. Ram Piyari Devi, w/o late Bibhuti Sharan Sah. 2. Murlidhar Sah, S/o late Bibhuti Sharan Sah. 3. Kumari Pratima, D/o late Bibhuti Sharan Sah. All residents of village- Chandwa, P.S.- Ara Nawada, P.O.- Chandwa, District- Bhojpur. 4. Kamla Devi, D/o late Bibhuti Sharan Sah and W/o Sri Vijay Gupta, resident of village- Guru Nanak Mohalla Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). 5. Manorama Devi, W/o Ajay Kumar Gupta and D/o Bibhuti Sharan Sah, R/o Village- Goumia, P.S.- Bokaro, District- Bokaro. …. Defendants-Applicants…Opp. Parties. ----------- 04- 25.11.2011 Heard Mr. A.B. Ojha for the petitioner. This civil revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as „the Code‟), is directed against the order dated 9.3.2009, passed by the learned Munsif 2nd court, Ara, in Misc. Case No.25 of 2006, whereby the defendants‟ application under Order-9, rule 13 of the Code has been allowed and the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 9.3.2006, passed in Title Suit No.46 of 2005, has been recalled for a fresh hearing and judgment. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner (the plaintiff). The suit instituted by him was 2 decreed ex-parte by judgment dated 9.3.2006. The defendants filed the aforesaid application under Order 9, rule 13 of the Code to set aside the judgment and decree. The same has been allowed by the impugned order on the ground that the substituted service of notice published in the Hindi daily “Aaj” has had no circulation in the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, the substituted service will be deemed not to have been effected on the defendants. This is a valid ground to recall the ex-parte judgment and decree, having been passed without due notice to them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application under Order-9, rule 13 of the Code was filed after a lapse of eight months. In his submission, therefore, the same was barred by limitation. We do not find it possible to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that, in a situation like the present one, the period of limitation will be deemed to have commenced from the date of knowledge. 4. This civil revision application is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/