Short Note : 1. On 9-12-1977 the appellants filed an application through their counsel under Order 9, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this application it was alleged that Harilal, who also looks after the business of the firm appellant No.1 was admitted in the hospital for a cataract operation and did not go to the shop from 18th July 1977 as he was in Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal since that day. On 20-7-1977 Dr. Raizada, who has been examined, performed the cataract operation and Harilal remained in the hospital up to 3rd August 1977. When he was discharged from the hospital he was instructed by the doctor to take rest for two months. It was further alleged in this application that the endorsement of refusal put on both the envelopes by the postman has been procured by the plaintiff. It was further alleged that the applicants learnt about the decree on 2nd December 1977 when execution of that decree was transferred to Bhopal and having learnt of the decree on 2-12-1977 Harilal came to Indore on 5-12-1977 and with the aid of the counsel inspected the record and got this application filed on 9-12-1977. Held : Unfortunately, the learned District Judge did not consider this aspect of the matter that the same two persons went available on the first day also and when they refused to take the envelopes and as the postman claims to have known them and also the fact that they were persons authorized to receive registered letters, there is no reason why he did not put the endorsement of refusal but put the endorsement "not found" on that day. This clearly indicates that either he did not know Magandas and Chetandas, nor that they were persons entitled to receive notice and put the endorsement "not found" on the first day of his own or at the instance of someone and on the second day the endorsement of refusal. Magandas, of course, has not stepped into the witness-box; but Chetandas has stepped into the witness-box and has stated that the postman did not come to the shop on the relevant date nor did he refuse to receive any registered letter. In the context of these circumstances it does not appear proper to accept the version given by the postman Ramgopal and to this extent the learned Court below has committed an error. In the context of these circumstances it does not appear proper to accept the version given by the postman Ramgopal and to this extent the learned Court below has committed an error. If Ramgopal's testimony is not accepted, apparently, it could not be held that summons was served on the defendant-appellants in accordance with law. 2. As regards knowledge of the decree, the learned Judge felt that the appellants did not get knowledge about the decree on 2nd December as has been alleged in their application. But in the discussion the learned Judge did not consider any circumstance on the basis which it could be said that he had knowledge earlier. The only thing the learned Judge has relied upon is that Harilal learnt about it on 2nd December and after inspecting the record even on 5-12-1977 found that a decree has been passed and there is no explanation of four days' delay as the application was filed on 9-12-1977. This does not appear to be justified as if on 5-12-1977 the appellants learnt that an ex parte decree is passed, according to them they approached a local counsel who ultimately preferred an application an 9th December 1977. Four days spent in engaging a counsel at Indore and getting an application prepared and filed in the Court could not be said to be such inordinate delay on the basis of which an application for setting aside an ex parte decree could be rejected. Apart from it, the limitation for filing an application starts running from the date on which a party knows about the decree. The discussion in the order of the learned District Judge does not indicate that the appellants had knowledge of the decree on any earlier date than 2-12-1977 or 5-12-1977. Admittedly, if the limitation is counted from 2nd December 1977 the application filed on 9th December is within time. Appeal allowed.