JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is an application for review of the order dated March 5, 1975 passed by a Id. Member of this Court Sri N.B. Lal since transferred is Ref. No. 43 of 1970-71. 2. I have heard the Id. counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record. 3. The Id. counsel for the petitioner has taken the plea that the applicant did not know about the decision of the reference on March 5, 1975 as the counsel's letter informing the applicant was never delivered in the village. 4. The record shows that notices to counsel for both the parties, Sri S.B. Tripathi, counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ratan Singh counsel for the O.P. were duly sent for March 5, 1975. The Id. counsel for the O.P. appeared in the court and was heard. The counsel for the revisionist did not appear. Again the order of the Id. Member dismissing the revision was communicated to both the above counsels by letter no, 8020 dated may 3, 1975. It cannot be presumed that these letter were not received by the Id. counsel for the applicant. The affidavit filed by Shanti Swarup on behalf of applicant itself shows that this reference was fixed for hearing on March 5, 1975 but the case was decided ex parte against the revisionist as no instruction was given by him to the counsel for doing Pairwi on March 5, 1975. In other words the Id. counsel for the applicant does not deny the receipt of court's intimation for hearing of the case on March 5, 1975. He however, has taken the plea that there was no letter of instruction form this client. 5. The position is that according to the Vakalatnama itself the counsel for the revisionist was required to appear before the court and to argue the case on behalf of his client on the date of the hearing. If he had not receive instruction from his client or had received inadequate instruction, he could request the court for an adjournment for seeking further instructions from his client. Absence of the revisionist as well as his counsel on the date fixed for hearing however, meant that the court was bound to note the non-appearance of the revisionist, and proceed in accordance with law thereafter. The Id. Absence of the revisionist as well as his counsel on the date fixed for hearing however, meant that the court was bound to note the non-appearance of the revisionist, and proceed in accordance with law thereafter. The Id. member, therefore, rightly dismissed the revision after considering the reference made by the Id. Addl. Commissioner. The order of the Id. Member is quire sound in law. 6. Under Item 124 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act 1963 the period of limitation for the review of a judgment by a Court other than the Supreme Court in 30 days from the date of the decree or order. Thus the period of limitation runs from the date of decree or order and not from the date of knowledge. The present review application becomes time-barred. The reasons shown for condoning the delay are not adequate. 7. The review petition is, therefore dismissed as being time-barred.