Short Note : 1. This revision is directed against the order of the First Additional Judge to the I Additional District Judge, Sagar, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1975 dated 3.1.1976 confirming the order of the trial Court (III Civil Judge, Class II, Khurai), refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree granted in Civil Suit No. 152-A of 1974. 2. The two Courts have given a concurrent finding of fact that Komalsingh (applicant No. 3 here) had refused to accept the summons tendered for self and his two brothers Phulsingh and Gulabsingh (applicant No. 1 and 2). The finding is that the there brothers had a common residence and service upon one of them was good service on all of them. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the two applicants. Phulsingh and Gulabsingh lived in a different village and service of summons on Komalsingh could not be a valid service upon them. 4. But this remains a bare contention. Neither Phulsingh nor Gulabsingh entered the witness-box to swear that they lived separate from Komalsingh. Their addresses in the cause title of their appeal/revision indicates that all the brothers live in one and the same village. 5. Be that as it may, Komalsingh admits that he had received knowledge of the ex-parte decree on 22.9.1974. The application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was presented on 8.11.1974, quite beyond the period of limitation. The other two applicants did not swear as to on what date they acquired knowledge of the ex-parte decree. All that we have is the testimony of Komalsingh. 6. The revision must, therefore, fail since the application made under Order 9, Rule 13 was obviously beyond limitation Revision dismissed.