( 1 ) ). Mr. Sanjanwala who appears on behalf of the defendant has raised the contention that the learned trial Judge was in error in rejecting the application on the ground that it was barred by time as if he had no jurisdiction to condone the delay. The order which the learned trial Judge wrote below application for setting aside the ex parte decree was fairly long. However nothing turns upon that order because having rejected the application for condoning delay he was necessarily obliged to reject the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. What he stated in his order below application for condoning delay was as follows:"time cannot be condoned as Art. 123 Limitation Act, is specific. "

( 2 ) ). Mr. Sanjanwala has argued that the order made by the learned trial Judge suffered from want of jurisdiction inasmuch as the learned trial Judge felt that he had no jurisdiction to condone delay on account of the express language used in Art. 123 of the Limitation Act. This contention was canvassed before the learned appellate Judge. The learned appellate Judge recorded a finding which appears to be slightly different from what was argued before him. He dealt with