ARJUNA CHARAN PATNAIK Vs. PURNANAND PATNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 19-12-1964 the suit was decreed ex parte, The decree was signed on 5-1196,5. On 30th of January, 1965, an application was filed under O. 9. Rule 13 C. P. C for setting aside the ex parte decree. The matter was heard and on 2nd of september, 1965, the ex parte decree was set aside subject to payment of costs. On payment of cost the suit was restored to file. The learned Munsif held that there was sufficient cause for the absence of the defendants on 19-12-1964 and that the application was within limitation as it was filed within 30 days from the date of the signing of the decree though it had been filed beyond 30 days from 1912-1964 If the limitation runs from 19-12-1964 admittedly there was a delay of 12 days The Civil revision has been filed against the order dated 2-9-1965 setting aside the ex-parte decree

(2.) IN revision, the finding of the learned Munsif that there was sufficient cause for absence of the defendants on the date of hearing is not assailed The only contention raised by Mr. Das is that the application for restoration is barred by limitation

(3.) ARTICLE 123 of the Limitation Act 1963 excluding the irrelevant portions runs thus: