' This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the respondent, Muhammad Boota, against the petitioner, Mst. Ramzan Bibi, for recovery of Rs,19,500. As the petitioner could not be served in the ordinary manner, in spite of repeated efforts in this behalf, service was effected on her through proclamation. Even then she did not enter appearance and was proceeded against ex parte. The Civil Judge, who was seized of the suit, recorded evidence of the respondent and passed ex pane decree against her on 31st July, 1988. It was on 17th September, 1988 that the petitioner made an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. This application was withdrawn by her on 3rd December, 1989 with permission to file a fresh application. Then, on 9th December, 1989, she made another application for setting aside the ex parte decree but it was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on the ground of limitation. Order of the learned Civil Judge in this regard was challenged by the petitioner by taking appeal before an Additional District Judge but in vain_ Hence this civil revision.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner did not come to know of the passing of the expane decree as soon as it was granted by the learned Civil Judge her application could not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. It was also urged by him that the petitioner did not come to know of the proclamation by which she was served. Assuming, without conceding, that whatever has been pleaded by the learned counsel is correct it is of little avail to the petitioner. If she. Had no knowledge of the proclamation or of the passing of the decree earlier, she did acquire knowledge in this behalf on 17th September, 1988 when she made the first application for setting aside the cx pane decree. Plea of lack of knowledge is, therefore, of no help to her qua the second application which was clearly time-barred even if she came to know of the passing of the ex parte decree on 17th September, 1Q88. She had only 30 days to make the application and the second application was filed by her after about three months of filing of the first one.
' Withdrawal of her earlier application with the permission of the Court did not allow her to seek condonation of delay. This is what has been clearly held in several precedent cases including Sadayatan Pandc v. (Firm) Ram Chandra Gopal (AIR 1934 Allahabad 688), Mohanlal Baheti and others v. Moulvi Tabizuddin Ahmed (MR 1939 Calcutta 625), Achut Dadaji Joshi and another v.
Parashram Vasudev Mogre (AIR 1938 Bombay 281) and Saddar Din v. Allah Rakha (1984 CLC 1258). If there was any defect in her earlier application for which it was withdrawn by her, that is her fault and she cannot take the benefit of her own wrong. There is thus no good reason for condoning delay under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908. In the circumstances, the learned Civil Judge was justified in dismissing the petitioner's subsequent application for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground of limitation.
3. There is no merit in this civil revision. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.