PANNALAL versus MURARILAL

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 757 · Decided: 27-02-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

P~"NALAL 
v. 
MURARILAL 
February 21, 1967 
8 
[K. N. WANCHOO, R. S. BACHAWAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Indian Limitation Act (9 of 1908), Art. 164-"Knowledge of 
the 
dee re~'', meaning of. 
The appellant had dealings with the respo~dent i~ respect of a ruqqa 
and a mortgage. 
The respondent filed two smts against the appellan.t for 
recovery of the moneys due on the ruqqa and the mortgage respectively. 
The summons in the suits was not duly served on the appellant and the 
suits were decreed ex-parte. The appellant then filed an application to set 
aside the ex-parte decree in the suit on the ruqqa. The court passed an 
order on 16th Augtlst 1958,. setting aside that ex-parte decree and also 
informed the appellant, who was present in court on that day. of the 
passing of the ex-parre decree in the mortgage suit. On 16th April 1959, 
the appellant filed an application for setting aside the ex-parre decree in 
the mortgage suit. The trial court and the High 
Court held that the 
a,Pplication was barred by limitation under Art. 
164 of the Indian Limita-
tion Act, 1908, as more than 30 days bad expired after the appellant had 
knowledge of the ex-parte decru. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD: The application was rightly dismissed. 
Under Art. 164 of the Limitation Act, the period of 30 days is count-
ed, when the summons is not duly served, from the date when the appli-
cant had knowledge of the decree; and the expression "knowledge of the 
decree" means knowledge of the particular decree which is sought to he 
set aside. 
It is a question of fact in each case whether the information 
conveyed is sufficient to impute the knowledge, and, the test is not what 
the infom..ation would mean to a stranger, but what it meant to the de-
fendant in the light of his previous dealings with the plaintiff a&d the 
facts and circumstances known to him. [759 B; 760 B-D] 
Pundlick Rowfi v. Vasantrao Madhav Rao 11 B.L.R. 1296; 
Kumud 
Nath Roy Chowdhury v. lotindra Nath Chowdhury 1.L.R. 38 Cal. 394; 
Bapurao Sltaram Karmarkar v. Sadhu Bhiva Gholap I.L.R. 47 Bom. 48S 
and Batu/an v. S. K. Dwlvedi, I.L.il. 33 Patna, 102S, approved. 
CML APPELLA~li JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 866 of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
April 7, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in F.A.F.O. No. 367 
of 19.59. 
S. G. Pntwardhan, Rameshwar Nath and Mnhinder Narain 
and Prnyag Das Agarwal, for the appellant. 
J. P. Goyal and Raghunath Singl1, for the respondents. 
L3Sup Cl/67-3 
758 
SUPllEME COURT llEPOllTS 
[1967] 2 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
. 
Bacbawat, J. 
This appeal incidentally raises a question of 
mterpretatmn of art. 164 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. The 
respondent instituted two suits against the appellant in the court 
of the First Civil Judge, Kanpur. Suit No. 25 of 1958 was for the 
recovery of moneys due on a morti,;age for Rs. 50,000. Suit 
No. 22 of I ~58 was to recover a sum of Rs. 8,000 due on a 
ruqqa. 
On May 15, 1958, both the suits weu decreed ex-parte. 
The ap~ellant filed an application to set aside tht: ex-parte decree 
passed in Suit No. 22 of 1958. This application was numbered 
as miscellaneous case No. 104 of 1958. On August 16, 1958, 
the First Civil Judge, Kanp~r. passed' an order setting aside this 
ex-/Jaru· decree on lcrtain conditions. The order sheet in O.S. No. 
22 of 1958, Misc. Case No. 104 of 1958 on August 16, 1958 
stated : 
"Heard parties counsel, 
accept 
the 
applicant's 
affidavit an\! hold that due to non-service applicant was 
prevented from being present. 
Allowed on condition 
of payment of Rs. 150--as costs within a month and on 
condition that allotment shall continue. 
Sd/- K. N. Goyal 
16-8-58 
Applicant i.~ hereby infonned of connected decree of 
25 of 1958 as well. 
Sd/- K. N. Goyal 
16/8." 
An appeal by the appellant from this order was dismissed on 
September 25, 
19~8. On February 5, 1959, an advocate em-
ployed by the appellant to file a civil revision petition against 
A 
B 
c 
D 
& 
the appellate order, obtained a certified copy of the order dated 
F 
August 16, 1958. On February 24, 1959, a civil revision peti-
tion was filed by the appellant against the appellate order. 
On 
April 16, 1959, the appellant filed an application in the court 
of the First Civil Judge, Kanpur, under 0.9, r. 13, C.P.C .. for 
the setting aside of the ex-parte decree passed in Suit No. 25 of 
1958. 
The Civil Judge dismissed the applicatio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.