Limitation for setting aside judgment and decree has to be taken from the date of knowledge.

Ashok Bhan, J.

1. Gian Kaur plaintiff-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) filed a suit for permanent injunction against Balwant Kaur, Sharanjit Kaur, Avtar Singh, Jaspreet Singh, giving their addresses as House No. 1122, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh and Amrit Singh giving his address as House No. 2274, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh, restraining them from alienating the suit land as described in the head note of the plaint or creating any sort of encumbrance over it.

2. The suit was filed in November, 1980 which was decreed ex-parte against the defendant-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) on 25.7.1981. On 20.8.1986, two sets of applications, one by Balwant Kaur and Avtar Singh etc. and the other by Amrit Singh were filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside ex parte decree dated 25.7.1981 in Civil Suit No. 705 of 4.11.1980 titled as Gian Kaur v. Balwant Kaur and Ors.. Both these applications were dismissed by the trial Court on 20.10.1989 against which two separate appeals were filed before the District Judge, Sangrur. Both the appeals were consolidated and disposed of together. The appeals were accepted, order of the trial Court was set aside, ex-parte decree was also set aside and the case was remanded back to the trial court for decision on merits. Aggrieved against the aforesaid decision of the District Judge, Sangrur, two revision petitions No. 940 and 2795 of 1994 have been filed by the petitioner which are being disposed of by this common order. Facts are taken from CR. No. 940 of 1994 titled Gian Kaur v. Amrit Singh and Ors..

3. Amrit Singh respondent in his application had pleaded that he was never served in the suit and he had no knowledge regarding pendency of the suit; that he came to know about the ex parte decree on 1.8.1986 when Prem Chand his tenants informed him that Gian Kaur widow of Harjit Singh was restraining him from raising construction of the roof of the shop which had fallen on the basis of the alleged decree. It was averred that address given in the suit was totally wrong and that at the relevant time he was posted as S.D.O. at Beas in P.W.D. (B & R) and he never received any summon or notice from the Court. Sharanjit Kaur and Avtar Singh etc. have alleged that they had no notice of the suit and the decree and that they came to know about the decree in question from Amrit Singh who was informed by his tenant Prem Chand about ten days prior to the filing of the application for setting aside the ex parte decree.

4. Gian Kaur petitioner contested the application for setting aside the exparte decree. She denied the allegations of the respondents by alleging that they had willfully absented themselves and intentionally did not put in appearance in Court. It was maintained by her that respondents were rightly proceeded against ex parte and the judgment and decree is valid. An objection has been taken on her behalf that application for setting aside ex parte decree was not filed within limitation. Trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the application is filed within time? OPA.

2. Whether there are sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 25.7.198? OPA.

3. Relief.

5. Parties led their evidence on consideration of which issues No. l and were decided by the trial Court in favour of the petitioner resulting in dismissal of the application filed by the respondents for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree. Respondents filed appeals which were accepted. Present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the ex parte decree and remanding the case back to the trial Court for decision on merits.

6. Counsel for the parties have been heard.

7. The Civil suit was registered on 4.11.1980. Defendant-respondents were ordered to be summoned for 2.12.1980 on which date it was reported by the process serving agency that they were not served on the given addresses. Respondents were ordered to be summoned for 13.1.1991 on filing