1. ' It is evident that the address as given in the Press for substituted service was not correct. It cannot, therefore, safely be said that service of summons was duly made. However, there is a statement of the respondent on record admitting that he bad attained knowledge of the decree in the month of January, 1977. The learned counsel wants to derive benefit out of the statement and contends that reckoning period from the date of knowledge of the decree, the application made on 24th April, 1977 for setting aside the ex parte decree was sheerly barred by time. In this regard reference is made to Qazi Abdur Rehman v. Mst. Sahib Jan and others (1) and Sheikh Abdul Hague v. Syed Muhammad Anwar (2). According to Article 164 of the Limitation Act application to set aside decree passed ex parte has to be mad within 30 days from the date of decree or where summons was not duly served, when the applicant has knowledge of the decree. The meaning of Article 164 is that the applicant must have knowledge not merely that a decree has been passed by some Court against him, but that a particular decree has been passed against him, in a particular Court, in favour of a particular person, for a particular sum and in respect of a particular subject-matter. Vague suspicion that the defendant must have heard of some decree is not enough to dismiss his petition on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The case as referred to above does not on all fours apply to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, because it was never the case of the respondent that he had an actual knowledge of the suit, claim given in the suit, and of the date fixed for appearance. The learned Additional District Judge, therefore, in allowing the defendant a chance to defend his case did not act, in the exercise of his jurisdiction, illegally or with material irregularity. There is no force in the revision petition. It is dismissed in limine.
(1) 1979 CLC 147 (2) PLD 1979 Lah. 332