POCHANNA Vs. POCHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBHEDAR , A.J.C. 1. The preliminary decree for foreclosure passed against the defendant on 11th October 1926 was made final on 6fch August 1928 ex parte the defendant. On 30th February 1927, the defendant filed an application for setting it aside on the ground that he was not served with notice. The plaintiff alleged that though the defendant was present in village he had refused to accept the notice and the application was barred by time as the defendant had knowledge of the proceeding of the final decree on 28th June 1927. The lower Court held that the defendant was not served and that the application was in time because the defendant came to know of the passing of the final decree only oh 29th September 1927, when the warrant for possession came to be executed. It, therefore, set aside the ex parte decree.

(2.) AGAINST this order the plaintiff has come up to this Court in revision on the following grounds:

(3.) THE first two grounds merely challenge pure findings of fact which cannot be revised by this Court under Section 115, Civil P.C. The third ground is misconceived. The lower Court has clearly found that the defendant came bo know of the passing of the ex parte decree one day prior to the presentation of the application for setting it aside and, therefore, the application was clearly within time.