https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302906 The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the ex parte decree and ordering the case to be expedited in the trial court. The defendant was directed to pay Rs. 50/- as costs to the plaintiffs within three months, with dismissal of the revision application for non-compliance. The court emphasized the duty of the court to inform parties of hearing dates, clarified limitations under Article 164 of the Limitation Act, and found no wilful neglect by the defendant. Despite setting aside the decree, the plaintiffs' possession of the property was maintained pending a final decree by the Munsif. en-us Tue, 23 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:48:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302906 The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the ex parte decree and ordering the case to be expedited in the trial court. The defendant was directed to pay Rs. 50/- as costs to the plaintiffs within three months, with dismissal of the revision application for non-compliance. The court emphasized the duty of the court to inform parties of hearing dates, clarified limitations under Article 164 of the Limitation Act, and found no wilful neglect by the defendant. Despite setting aside the decree, the plaintiffs' possession of the property was maintained pending a final decree by the Munsif. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302906