1920 (2) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssed against him. He applied on the 5th of October 1918 for setting aside this order. His application was dismissed as barred by time by the learned District Judge, who did not refer to any provision of the law which he considered applicable. From the terms of his judgment, however, it is clear that he considered that an application should have been made within 30 days from the date when Mehraj Din had knowledge of the order; in other words, that the matter was governed by Article 164 of the Limitation Act. 2. Against this decision an appeal was preferred to this Court and heard by Shadi Lal, J., who decided that a payment order was not a decree and that Article 164 had, therefore, no application. He also considered that the application ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ect, but he omitted to notice that the learned author referred to other authorities that an order obtained ex parte or one which is in truth a nullity, may perhaps even now he discharged by the Court which made it. We have no difficulty in agreeing with the latter remark as far as Courts in India are concerned and also hold that section 169 has no application to petitions for the getting aside of ex parte decrees. This is plain from the terms of the section itself, as a person affected adversely by an ex parte order cannot in a majority of cases serve a notice of his appeal upon the respondent within three weeks after the order complained of had been made against him. Moreover it is clear that the propriety of setting aside an ex parte orde....