MT. RAHAMATBI Vs. BADRIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is an application for revision of an order passed in appeal by the First Additional District Judge, Akola,, upholding the order of the trial Court rejecting the application of the applicant to have an, & & parte decree set aside. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the applicant failed to prove that she did not have knowledge of the passing of the decree prior to 15 or 20 days of the presentation by her of the application for setting aside the ex parte decree.

(2.) IT is urged here that the Courts below wrongly threw the burden upon the applicant of establishing that she had no knowledge of the passing of the decree within 20 days as alleged by her and therefore erred in law in holding that the applicant's application was time barred under Article 164. Lim. Act. But, as held in Duri v. Mohan Lal [1908] 4 N.L.R. 184, a mistake of law, even as regards limitation, does not entitle the aggrieved party to the remedy of revision, under Section 115, Civil P.C., I, therefore, dismiss this application as untenable under Section 115, Civil P.C.