IMPORTANT POINT
The limitation period for challenging an ex-parte order starts from the date of knowledge of the order, not the date it was issued.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. T. B. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of Indian challenging the impugned order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dimapur, Nagaland in I.A. (Civil) No.112/2022 arising out of Civil Suit No.14/2012.

3. The case, in a nutshell, is that the respondent, as plaintiff, filed Civil Suit No. 14/2012 against the petitioner/defendant. The respondent stated that he and his associates organized a concert on 06.05.2012 in Imphal, Manipur. The petitioner was provided tickets for this concert, but, neither, he made payment nor returned the unsold tickets. Furthermore, the petitioner shifted his residence from Imphal. Through this suit, the respondent/plaintiff prayed for the recovery of Rs. 40,05,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs five thousand) only, including an outstanding balance of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) only. This sum represents damages for assault and harassment caused to the plaintiff, along with interest at 18% per annum from 01.04.2012, both pendente lite and future until the final payment or realization.

4. The suit was filed in the year 2012, but, the petitioner/defendant did not receive any summons or notice, nor did he come across the substituted notice published in the newspaper in Manipur. The petitioner stated that since the mid-part of 2012, he had shifted to New Delhi for business, and thus, he had no information about the institution of Civil Suit No. 14/2012 by the respondent/plaintiff. It was only in early March 2022 that the petitioner/defendant became aware of the pendency of the said civil suit before the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dimapur, Nagaland, where the petitioner was arrayed as the sole defendant.

5. After coming to know about the pendency of the Civil Suit, the petitioner came to Dimapur and contacted an advocate. After obtaining a certified copy of the order dated 24.01.2013, the petitioner came to know that the learned Trial Court had passed an ex-parte order on that date. Subsequently, the petitioner/defendant filed an interlocutory application being I.A.(C)112/2022 arising out of Civil Suit No.14/2012 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dimapur, Nagaland, praying for recalling the order dated 24.01.2013. However, the Trial Court, vide order dated 21.07.2022, dismissed the interlocutory application, citing that it was barred by limitation. During the hearing, the petitioner/applicant also requested permission to participate in the remaining proceedings of the civil suit as a defendant, as per the provisions of Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. But, his prayer was rejected and dismissed the application.

6. The present petitioner, being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dimapur in I.A.(C) No.112/2022, has preferred this revision petition challenging the propriety, legality, and correctness of the aforementioned order.

7. Mr. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the Trial Court erred in law and facts by dismissing I.A.(C) No.112/2022. He argued that the Court failed to consider that the petitioner came to know about the order dated 24.01.2013 only on 07.03.2022, upon receiving the certified copy. Immediately thereafter, on 10.03.2022, within 3(three) days of obtaining the certified copy, the petitioner filed the interlocutory application. He further contends that the Trial Court should have calculated the limitation period from the date the petitioner acquired knowledge of the order on 07.03.2022, rather than from the date the order was passed. He emphasized that the petitioner acted promptly upon gaining knowledge of the case, filing the application without delay. Therefore, he submit