TMI Blog1959 (10) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. 1 to 3 obtained a loan of Bs. 5,000/- through their Munim, defendant No. 4 Nanuram and executed a Hundi payable at sight dated 24th of November, 1954 and the said Hundi was executed by defendant No. 4, their Munim on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 to 3. It was then alleged that the amount of the Hundi was not paid when presented. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were stated to be liable on the Hundi, but it was also pleaded that in case defendants Nos. 1 to 3 may raise any objection as to the authority of defendant No. 4, the said defendant No. 4 was also made a defendant. On the summonses being issued, the report was that defendant No. 1 refused to accept it and the summons was affixed on the outer door of his dwelling on 13th of January, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not correct The Court, however, held that on the statement of Sohanlal, he received information of the decree on Jeth Vadi 5 or 6, samwat 2011 corresponding to 22nd or 23rd of May, 1954 and the application, which was presented on 8-7-1954 was barred by limitation under Article 164 of the Indian Limitation Act. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree was accordingly dismissed. Sohanlal has filed this appeal. 4. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that Sohanlal really got information of the decree on 10-6-1954 as mentioned in his affidavit along with the application and that under some mistake, he gave the Hindi date as Jeth Vadi 6, samwat 2011. The other reason in support of the appeal was said to be that Sohanlal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the service of summons, the process-server Hanuman has deposed that he did not know Sohanlal from before and one person was pointed out by Shankarlal, Petition Writer of Batangarh to be Sohanlal at Doongargarh, but that the said person was not the defendant present in court. Shankerlal, petition writer also said that he did not know Sohanlal from before and he had pointed out to a person in a house which was said to be of Sohanlal. Sohanlal himself came in the witness-box and said that the summonses were not served on him. The lower court rightly held that the report on the summons that Sohanlal refused to accept the summons was not correct, 7. As to limitation, Sohanlal said in his affidavit submitted along with the application, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed on to Sohanlal was sufficient information from which the period of limitation should start. 9. Article 164 of the Indian Limitation Act is as follows: By a defendant from an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte. Thirty days. The date of the decree or where the summons was not duly served, when the applicant has knowledge of the decree. 10. In the present case, the summons was not duly served and the period of limitation would start from the date when the applicant had knowledge of the decree. The expression knowledge of the decree has been the subject of several decisions and it is now established that a mere information that some person has obtained som ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A vague information about there being a decree is not sufficient for a period of limitation to run against the applicant. In the Patna case, the defendant had filed an application in execution proceedings for time. Even then, it was held following the Bombay case MANU/MH/0147/1922 referred to above , that the knowledge which can be attributed for the purposes of the period of limitation is the knowledge of the particular decree and that vague information about there being a decree is not sufficient for the period of limitation to run against the applicant. The same view was taken in Chintaman Pawar v. Pannalal MANU/NA/0093/1930. The relevant observation is that the law requires, in order to show that the applicant had knowledge of the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticular facts in each case. In the present case, there is no evidence on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant had received information of the particular decree of a particular court for a particular sum prior to thirty days of his application. But what is made use of is the statement of the defendant and Jaichandlal made in court. As stated earlier, those statements only show that Jaichandlal did inform Sohanlal that a decree about ₹ 6,000/- had been passed against him. But this was quite insufficient information for the purpose of start of limitation. When the defendant said in his application that he received information from Jaichandlal about the decree, that was of course the first information about a certain decree b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
