Decrees passed in suits cannot be set aside without proper legal grounds and should not be done as a matter of judicial generosity.

1. This petition is for revision of an order allowing the second defendant's application under 0.9, R.13, C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree in the case.

2. The suit was once decreed ex parte in 1953. The second defendant then moved an application under 0.9, R.13, C.P.C., which was allowed. Thereafter he was contesting the suit. Subsequently at the hearing on 14-3-1956 he did not appear and so the suit came to be decreed again ex parte that day. The application under 0.9, R.13, CPC. was filed by the second defendant only on 24-7-1956. Obviously, it is barred by time, the period of limitation being 30 days from the date of the decree as per Art.164 of the Limitation Act IX of 1908. There was no petition to condone the delay under S.5 of the Limitation Act. The court below has however allowed the petition and set aside the ex parte decree "as a special case" without entering any finding as to the sufficiency of the cause for non-appearance of the party on the date of hearing.

3. A decree passed in a suit cannot be lightly set aside especially without proper legal grounds therefor. It cannot be done as a matter of judicial generosity in any'special case'. Judicial decisions should always be governed by the head and not by the heart.

4. The order of the lower court is prima facie unsupportable. The application is clearly barred by limitation, and ought to have been dismissed on that very ground.

5. The C. R. P. is therefore allowed; and the second defendant's application dated 24-7-1956 is dismissed.

Allowed.