Limitation for setting aside ex parte decrees requires timely action from knowledge and proof of sufficient cause for delay.

An application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex parte decree was held governed by Article 123 of the Limitation Act, so the thirty-day period ran from the date of knowledge where there was no due service. Because the applicant's own pleadings fixed knowledge on 4 May 1973 and the application was filed later, the challenge was time-barred. The Court also held that a later date of knowledge contrary to the pleadings could not be accepted, evidence beyond the pleadings could not be relied on, and no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay under Section 5. The plea that the ex parte order was void did not excuse compliance with limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside the ex parte decree was barred by limitation and whether delay could be condoned on the facts pleaded.

Analysis: The application was held to be governed by Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963, under which the period of thirty days runs from the date of knowledge where the defendant was not duly served. The applicant's own pleadings in both applications stated that knowledge of the decree was acquired on 4.5.1973. On that basis, the first application filed on 7.6.1973 was beyond time. The Court further held that a plea of a later date of knowledge could not be entertained when it was contrary to the pleadings, and evidence beyond the pleadings could not be relied upon. As the application was barred by time, the applicant was required to explain the delay and show sufficient cause for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. No sufficient cause was pleaded or proved, even for the short delay beyond 4.6.1973 when the application had in fact been prepared. The argument that the ex parte order was void did not assist the applicant, because even a void order must be challenged within the statutory period.

Conclusion: The application under Order 9 Rule 13 was time-barred and the delay was not liable to be condoned; the challenge to the ex parte decree failed.

Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed, and the orders refusing to set aside the ex parte decree were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking to set aside an ex parte decree must move within the limitation period prescribed by Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and if delayed must plead and prove sufficient cause, including explanation of the delay, even where the ex parte order is alleged to be void.

---