(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THE appellant-University was impleaded as a party-defendant to the Title Suit No. 61 of 1990 on the file of Munsif No. ( 1 ). District Karimganj in Assam. The suit was posted for appearance on 29/5/1990 but the summons was served on the appellant on 28/5/1990. He sent a letter to the court seeking adjournment. Though the case was adjourned to 19-7-1990, the adjourned date was not intimated to the University. In consequence, the University did not enter appearance and the suit was ultimately decided ex parte. The appellant tiled an application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex parte decree. The trial court held that it was barred by limitation under Article 123 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. On appeal, the High court confirmed the order. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

(3) COLUMN 3 envisages that limitation would run from the date of the decree, or where the summons or notice was not duly served, when the applicant had knowledge of the decree. The question, therefore, is whether the appellant has been duly served.

(4) ORDER 5 Rule 6 Civil Procedure Code provides that:

"6. Fixing da