SATYA NARAIN DHANDHANIA Vs. FIRM NARSING DAS BHUDARMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the common order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Monghyr dismissing the applications filed by the appellants under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in Money Suit No. 30 of 1961 in favour of respondent No. 1. The appellant in Miscellaneous appeal No. 105 of 1984 is the mother of the appellants in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 104 of 1964.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed both the applications under Order 9 Rule 13 on the grounds (1) that the applications are barred by limitation; (2) that the appellants had full knowledge of the suit as well as of the date fixed for hearing and (3) that the appellants have not made out sufficient cause for their non-appearance when the suit was taken up for ex parte hearing.

(3.) The ex parte decree was passed on the 15th May 1963. The applications under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code giving rise to Miscellaneous Appeals 105 and 104 of 1964 were filed on the 4th July and the 13th July 1963 respectively that is to say, both these applications were filed beyond the period of thirty days from the date of the decree.