SIMHADRI PADHI Vs. THORAMANI PADHIANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decree holder is the Appellant. He obtained an ex parte decree on 21 -12 -1955. Title Suit No. 222 of 1951 in the Court of the Munsif, Berhampur. The Respondent filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure in M.J.C. No. 21 of 1956 for setting aside the ex parte decree, which. -was rejected on 6 -8 -1956. Misc. Appeal No. 34 of 1956 against order dated 6 -8 -1956 was allowed on 25 -10 -1956.

(2.) MR . Sen contends that the decree dated 21 -12 -1955 was revived into life on 29 -8 -1957, and as the present execution has been filed on 9 -8 - 960, within three years thereof, the execution is within time. He relies on Articles 182(1) and 181 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) MR . Sen relies on Clause (1) of article 182 which prescribes a period of three years from the date of the decree or order. He contends that the date of the decree is 29 -8 -1957 when the ex parte decree was revived in the life in C.R. 274 of 1956. There are some authorities in support of such contention.