JUDGMENT S. D. Khare, J. - This is an appeal directed against an order dated 13th April, 1961 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Aligarh, dismissing the defendant-appellants application for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against the defendants. 2. The facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are that a suit on the basis of a mortgage was brought against the defendant appellant and one more person. 18th February, 1960, was fixed for recording evidence. On that date the suit was adjourned, at the request of the defendant-appellants, on payment of Rs. 60/- as costs, and 11th May, 1960, was the next date fixed for evidence. The costs were not paid. The presiding officer fell ill on 11th May, 1960, and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 26th May, 1960, for recording of evidence, and 27th May, 1960, for arguments. The defendants failed to appear on 26th May, 1960, and the defendant-appellant's counsel stated that he had no instructions. The presiding officer proceeded to decide the case on merits under Order 17, Rule 3, C. P. C. and decreed the plaintiff's suit against both the defendants. Against this decree an appeal in forma pauperis was filed on 25-8-1960. The application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis was dismissed on 12th September, 1960.The defendant-appellant was given some time to deposit the court-fee, but he did not do so, presumably because he was advised that an application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Or. 9, Rule 13 could have been moved. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree was actually moved by the defendant appellant on 26-9-1960, i.e., about four months after the passing of the ex parte decree. 3. Prima facie, the application was barred by time because under Article 164 of the First Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act the application for setting aside the ex parte decree should have been made within 30 days of the date of the decree. The defendant-appellant, however, contended that his application should be deemed to be within time because of the provisions of Secs. 5 and 14 of the Indian Limitation Act. 4. The defendant-appellant, however, contended that his application should be deemed to be within time because of the provisions of Secs. 5 and 14 of the Indian Limitation Act. 4. The learned Civil Judge, after having considered the entire evidence led by the defendant-appellant, arrived at the conclusion that the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act were not applicable, that no case was made out for applying the provisions of Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act, and that on merits also there was not sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree. The appeal is directed against that order. 5. In our opinion this appeal must fail on the ground that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree moved by the defendant (appellant) was clearly barred by time. Under the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act was not extended to an application for setting aside an ex parte decree under Or. 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. It is true that Sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, provides that Sec. 5 shall be applicable to all suits and applications (including an application under Or. 9, Rule 13, C. P. C.). However, the new Limitation Act came into force with effect from 1st January 1964, and its provisions could not be made applicable to the applications under Or. 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. made prior to the date when the new Act came into force. Sec. 31 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, provides as follows: - "Nothing in this Act shall - (a) enable any suit, appeal or application to be instituted, preferred or made, for which the period of imitation prescribed by the Indian imitation Act, 1908, expired before he commencement of this Act; or (b) affect any suit, appeal or application instituted, preferred or made before, and, pending at, such commencement." 6. It is, therefore, clear that the revisions of the new Indian Limitation Act could not apply to the application for setting aside the ex parte decree which was presented on 6-9-1960. 7. We see no reason to differ from he view taken by the court below hat Sec. 14 of the Indian Limitation to had no application to the facts of the present case. The application or setting aside the ex parte decree was clearly barred by time. 8. 7. We see no reason to differ from he view taken by the court below hat Sec. 14 of the Indian Limitation to had no application to the facts of the present case. The application or setting aside the ex parte decree was clearly barred by time. 8. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.