(1.) The Order of the learned First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in LA. No.337/92 in O.S. No.550/91 dated 30-4-1992 dismissing it, is assailed in this appeal. It was filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. to set aside the exparte decree dated 27-1-1992 passed against the defendant-appellant. The respondent is the plaintiff who filed the suit and got the decree.
(2.) The defendant was duly served with suit summons in O.S. No.550of 1991. He engaged one Sri Reddi an Advocate to represent him. His Advocate filed the vakalat into the Court from him on 30-9-91. The case was adjourned from time to time to3-10-91,28-10-91 and 27-1-92 on which date neither the defendant nor his Advocate appeared in the Court and therefore, the suit wasdecreed ex parte. The defendant filed LA. 337/92 on 23-3-1992 to set aside the exparte decree.
(3.) It was opposed by the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge held that the petition was barred by the period of limitation of 30 days prescribed under Article 123 of the Indian Limitation Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The contention that the period of limitation commenced from the date of knowledge of the decree which the defendant had, was rejected and since no application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay, the petition to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed for want of limitation. Consequently no find ing was given regarding the merits of the case namely, the sufficient cause sought to be shown by the defendant from appearing in the Court when the suit was called on for hearing.