Mere knowledge that a decree has been passed against the defendant is not sufficient to start the limitation period under Article 164 of the Limitation Act. The defendant must have knowledge of the particular decree, including the court in which it was passed, the person in whose favor it was passed, and the amount decreed.

K. L. BAPNA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Ratangarh dated 23rd of March, 1955 refusing to set aside the, ex parte decree.

( 2 ) POONAMCHAND of Ladnu instituted a suit against Sohanlal, his two minor sons Ratanlal and Champalal, under guardianship of Sohanlal of Doon-gargarh and one Nanuram. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 5,000/- for principal and Rs. 500/- for interest on the allegation that the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 obtained a loan of Bs. 5,000/- through their Munim, defendant No. 4 Nanuram and executed a Hundi payable at sight dated 24th of November, 1954 and the said Hundi was executed by defendant No. 4, their Munim on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 to 3. It was then alleged that the amount of the Hundi was not paid when presented. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were stated to be liable on the Hundi, but it was also pleaded that in case defendants Nos. 1 to 3 may raise any objection as to the authority of defendant No. 4, the said defendant No. 4 was also made a defendant. On the summonses being issued, the report was that defendant No. 1 refused to accept it and the summons was affixed on the outer door of his dwelling on 13th of January, 1954, and further that defendant No. 4 concealed himself on getting information of the summons and his summons was also affixed on the outer door of his dwelling. An order was passed for proceeding ex parts against the defendants. As two of the defendants were minors, the court directed that a guardian should foe appointed for them and the plaintiff should deposit Rs. 100/- as remuneration of guardian for the minor defendants. The plaintiff then filed an application, that the names of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, minors, be struck off. The plaintiff gave evidence in support of his case and the suit was decreed ex parte against Sohanlal and it was held that defendant No. 4 was, as a consequence, not liable. This ex parte decree was passed on 25-5-1954.

( 3 ) ON 8-7-1954, Sohanlal filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree on the allegations that he was at Calcutta on 13-1-1954 and had no information about the suit and his summons had not been duly served. He said that the suit bad been brought about by collusion between Nanuram and the plaintiff and the said Sohanlal only got information of the decree on 10-8-1954 from one Jaichandlal Golechha of Ratangarh. It was then said that the suit amount was a large amount and be wanted to contest the same and, therefore, the ex parte decree be set aside. Poonamchand controverted the facts. It was found by the Court that the summons had not been duly served and the report that Sohanlal refused to accept the summons was not correct The Court, however, held that on the statement of Sohanlal, he received information of the decree on Jeth Vadi 5 or 6, samwat 2011 corresponding to 22nd or 23rd of May, 1954 and the application, which was presented on 8-7-1954 was barred by limitation under Article 164 of the Indian Limitation Act. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree was accordingly dismissed. Sohanlal has filed this appeal.

( 4 ) IT is contended on behalf of the appellant that Sohanlal really got information of the decree on 10-6-1954 as mentioned in his affidavit along with the application and that under some mistake, he gave the Hindi date as Jeth Vadi 6, samwat 2011. The other reason in support of the appeal was said to be that Sohanlal had been informed by Shri Hari-kishan Purohit, a pleader of Bikaner that the civil Courts would reopen after the vacations On 8-7-1954 and that was the reason why he could not present the application on the 7th of July, 1954. There is an afidavit of Shri Harikishan that Sohanlal met him on 5-7-1954 at Doongargarh and on enquiry, Harikishan had told Sohanlal that the courts will reopen after the vacations on 8-7-1954.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel foi the respondent urged that the information received from Harikishan was not sufficient lor grant