Revisional jurisdiction limits prevent reweighing evidence; absence of duly served summons shifts limitation to date of knowledge.

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is confined to jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity; the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own factual findings for those of the subordinate court unless the findings are perverse or unsupported by record. On service of summons and limitation for an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, where summons were not duly served, Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes limitation run from the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree, not the date of decree. Applying these principles, the trial court's finding that service was not duly effected was upheld and the application was treated as within time.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could reassess evidence and overturn the trial court's findings on service of summons and knowledge of the decree; (ii) whether the appellant had been duly served with summons and whether the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): whether the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could reassess evidence and overturn the trial court's findings on service of summons and knowledge of the decree.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction is confined to jurisdictional errors, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or material illegality or irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction. It does not permit the High Court to function as a court of first appeal or to reappreciate evidence and substitute its own factual findings for those of the subordinate court, unless the subordinate court's findings are wholly unsupported by evidence or are palpably wrong. A plea of limitation may involve a collateral jurisdictional fact, but even then the High Court must remain within the limits of revisional scrutiny.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded the permissible limits of revisional jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether the appellant had been duly served with summons and whether the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The order sheet showed that the plaint was defective initially, that no summons could validly have issued before the defects were cured, and that there was no reliable indication of service on the appellant. The process server's evidence and return were found unworthy of credence, while the appellant's evidence showed absence of service and lack of knowledge of the decree until much later. Under Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation for setting aside an ex parte decree runs from the date of decree only where summons was duly served, and otherwise from the date of knowledge. The trial court's view that service was not duly effected was supported by the record.

Conclusion: The appellant was not duly served, and the application under Order IX Rule 13 was within limitation.

Final Conclusion: The ex parte decree, so far as the appellant was concerned, was liable to be set aside and the trial court's order restoring his defence was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In revisional jurisdiction, a High Court cannot reweigh evidence or replace a subordinate court's factual findings on jurisdictional facts unless those findings are perverse or unsupported by the record; where summons is not duly served, limitation for setting aside an ex parte decree runs from the date of knowledge under Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

---