https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286311 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. en-us Thu, 05 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:26:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286311 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286311