Article 164 knowledge must be specific to the decree; vague notice of a decree is not enough for limitation.

Summons was held not duly served, because the process-server did not identify the defendant and the person pointed out was not the defendant who later appeared. The ex parte decree therefore could not be sustained on service alone, and limitation for setting it aside turned on actual knowledge of the decree. Under Article 164 of the Indian Limitation Act, knowledge had to relate to the particular decree, court, party and sum, and vague information that some decree had been passed was insufficient. Information that a decree of about Rs. 6,000 had been passed did not amount to the requisite knowledge, so the application was not time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the summons was duly served on the defendant so as to justify the ex parte decree and start limitation for an application to set it aside; (ii) whether the defendant's knowledge amounted to knowledge of the decree within the meaning of Article 164 of the Indian Limitation Act, so that the application was time-barred.

Issue (i): whether the summons was duly served on the defendant so as to justify the ex parte decree and start limitation for an application to set it aside.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the process-server did not know the defendant from before and the person pointed out to him was not the defendant who appeared in court. The lower court's view that the refusal report was incorrect was affirmed. Since the summons was not duly served, the application to set aside the ex parte decree had to be tested with reference to the defendant's knowledge of the decree.

Conclusion: The summons was not duly served, and the ex parte decree could not be sustained on that basis.

Issue (ii): whether the defendant's knowledge amounted to knowledge of the decree within the meaning of Article 164 of the Indian Limitation Act, so that the application was time-barred.

Analysis: Article 164 provided thirty days from the date of knowledge where summons had not been duly served. The governing rule applied was that knowledge must relate to the particular decree, in the particular court, in favour of a particular person, for a particular sum; vague information that some decree had been passed was insufficient. On the facts, the information conveyed to the defendant was only that a decree of about Rs. 6,000 had been passed against him, which did not amount to knowledge of the decree for limitation purposes.

Conclusion: The application was not barred by limitation, because the defendant's earlier information was not sufficient knowledge under Article 164.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the dismissal of the application was set aside, and the application to set aside the ex parte decree was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: For limitation under Article 164 of the Indian Limitation Act, a defendant must have knowledge of the particular ex parte decree and not merely vague awareness that some decree has been passed.

---