AMARJIT SINGH Vs. HARNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy here is with regard to the starting point of limitation for the filing of an application for setting aside an ex parte-decree for specific performance.

(2.) On October 3, 1986, an ex parte decree for specific performance was passed against respondent Harnam Singh. The petitioner thereafter took out execution proceedings and service in those proceeding was effected upon the respondent on December 6, 1986. The next 'date of hearing thereafter was December 20, 1986 on which date, on account of the absence of the Presiding Officer of the Court, the warrant for execution of the decree was issued for February 12, 1987. The point in issue now is whether the starting point of limitation should be taken to be December 6, 1986 when service of the summons was effected upon the respondent or February 12, 1987, which was the next date fixed in the execution proceedings after the service of summons upon respondent

(3.) It is well settled that in a matter like the present limitation begins to run from the date of the knowledge of the decree to be set aside. This being so, the knowledge of the decree passed against the respondent Harnam Singh cannot, but be imputed to him from the date when he received notice of the execution proceedings against him which was December 6, 1986. This being so, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the present application for setting aside the decree, which was filed on February 12, 1987, was obviously barred by limitation. The lower appellate Court thus clearly fell in error in treating February 12, 1987 to be the starting point of limitation and therefore, the application to be within time. The application filed on that date stood barred by limitation and what is more there is no material on record to establish any sufficient cause for condonation of this delay. The impugned order of the lower appellate court is accordingly hereby set aside and this revision petition is thus accepted. In the circumstances, however, there, will be no order as to costs.