2023 CLC 768
Article 164 of Limitation Act clearly provides thirty (30) days limitation for a defendant to apply for setting aside an exparte decree from the date of the decree or if the summons were not duly served, from the date of knowledge of the decree. The wording of the third column of Article 164 makes it amply clear that the legislature has envisaged two independent situations; (i) Where the applicant or his counsel has entered appearance in response to the summons prior to ex-parte proceedings is ordered against him or where service of first summons are not disputed, and (ii) where summons were not served and the exparte decree is passed. In the first eventuality period of limitation starts from the date of decree and in the second situation, the thirty days starts from the date of knowledge of the decree. Word “summons” used in Article 164 of the Limitation Act clearly refers to first summon issued when the suit was instituted. One can be benefited from the second part in column 3, if he can show that the first summon was not served and he remained ignorant of the proceedings and the ex-parte decree. Reading of Article 181 of the Limitation Act reflects that its application is restricted to the situations where period of limitation is not provided elsewhere in the first schedule of the Limitation Act or section 48 of the Code, however, when limitation is provided in other articles of the first schedule of the Limitation Act, this residuary provision cannot be applied.
0 Comments