IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1941 of 2008 MD. MUNNA & ANR Versus SMT. KRISHNA SHARMA & ORS ----------- 2 26/11/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners admits that when the suit was decreed exparte on 17.1.2008 the petitioners being defendants upon acquiring knowledge had filed an application for setting aside the exparte decree on 8.8.2008 on the basis of date of knowledge. The court below has proceeded that there was no application for condonation of delay and in fact the application was barred by limitation. The submission of counsel for the petitioner that the limitation petition was not at all required, is patently incorrect in view of the fact that while delay in filing of the application can always be explained, but then it would be absurd to suggest that computation of limitation would also be made from the date of knowledge. Counsel for the petitioners would then submit that under some misconceived legal advice the petitioners had not filed 2 limitation petition. The counsel therefore would submit that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to file a fresh application along with a limitation petition. In that view of the matter this Court would give liberty to file a fresh application for setting aside the ex-parte decree along with an application seeking condonation of delay, which would be disposed of by the Court below without being prejudiced by the impugned order. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar