JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This appeal, is directed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Balasore rejecting the Appellants' petition under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC as barred by limitation. 2. Some relevant facts are stated in brief. Appellant is the wife of the Respondent. When they were living together, the suit property consisting of a house in Balasore town was purchased on 7-10-1983 in the Appellant's name by a registered sale deed for consideration of Rs. 26,000/-. Later, there was discord between the couple and the Appellant left the matrimonial home sometime in 1984. The Respondent instituted the suit for declaration that the suit property was purchased by him Benami in the name of the Appellant and that he has title and possession over the same. 3. In the plaint the Appellant was described as residing in the care of one Anil Kumar Doshi of Balasore town. Summons were issued from the Court for service on her at the address stated in the plaint. Summons by registered post was returned with the endorsement of the postman that it was refused. Summons through process server was returned with the report that the Appellant refused to accept the same. On the above reports, service of summons on the Appellant was held to be sufficient and on 27-11-1984 an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the Respondent. 4. On 14-2-1985 the Appellant filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree. She stated therein that on account of cruelty perpetrated on her by the Respondent it was not possible to lead a conjugal life and therefore on 28-6-1984 she left the matrimonial home and went away to Bombay with her children and ever since she is residing there. Being fully aware of this fact, the Respondent by stating a false address in the plaint misled the Court and caused fraudulent service of summons on her although she was neither aware of the institution of the suit nor was there any occasion forrefusal of the Court summons. For the first time she came to know of the ex parte decree on 13-2-1985 and so the ex parte decree was liable to be set aside. 5. For the first time she came to know of the ex parte decree on 13-2-1985 and so the ex parte decree was liable to be set aside. 5. The orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in the suit reveal very sad state of affairs and indicate how a superior civil Court disposed of a petition under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC in a mechanical manner without application of mind. On 14-2-1985 soon after the petition was filed, the learned Court directed for an office report. An office report was submitted to him on 25-2-1985 stating therein that the petition was barred by limitation and so the limitation matter should be heard. Therefore, on the same day the learned Court Directed hearing on limitation matter, heard the same on 16-3-1985 and then passed the impugned order. No notice was issued to the Respondent. No witnesses were examined. It was held that the Appellant failed to prove sufficient cause for each day of delay and so limitation could not be condoned. 6. This case is governed by Article 123 of the Limitation Act which is quoted for easy reference: 123. To set aside a Thirty decree passed days. ex parte or to rehear an appeal decreed or heard ex parte. The date of the decree or where summons or notice was not duly served, when the applicant had knowledge of the decree. xx xx xx It is quite dear from a plain reading of the Article that if the Defendant has been duly served with summons, time will run from the date of the decree and not from the date of knowledge of the decree, but if the summons has not been duly served, the period of limitation will run from the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree. So there are two starting points of limitation. One is the date of the ex parte decree and the other is the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree. With reference to the second, the condition which must be satisfied is that no summons or notice should have been duly served or they were served fraudulently. So there are two starting points of limitation. One is the date of the ex parte decree and the other is the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree. With reference to the second, the condition which must be satisfied is that no summons or notice should have been duly served or they were served fraudulently. When a petition for setting aside an ex parte decree is made after thirty days from the date of the decree and the Defendant alleges that he was not duly served with summons or there was fraudulent service of summons, onus is on him to show that he did not have knowledge of the ex parte decree because of non-service or fraudulent service of summons. Curiously, the learned Court did not refer to Article 123, although the Appellant had specifically stated in her petition under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, that there was fraudulent service of summons, as a result of which she had no knowledge of the ex parte decree. A case of this nature is not to be dismissed in limine or in a summary way as has been done by the learned Court. He should have issued notice to the Respondent and should have given both the parties full opportunity of proving their respective cases. Onus was on the Appellant to establish that there was fraudulent service of summons and as a matter of fact summons were not served on her. For the first time she came to know of the ex parte decree by making enquiries on 13-2-1985. It was equally open to the Respondent to prove that her address given in the plaint was correct and summons were duly served on her. This well recognised procedure was entirely forgotten and justice was sacrificed at the alter of speedy disposal. It is also surprising that the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant did not point out the law in this respect and the procedure to be followed in cases of this nature and it is not understood as to what arguments be advanced for condonation of limitation. 7. On consideration of the above facts apparent on the face of the records, I am convinced that justice was denied to the Appellant in treating and disposing of the limitation matter in a summary way. The impugned order is, therefore, illegal and cannot be supported. 8. 7. On consideration of the above facts apparent on the face of the records, I am convinced that justice was denied to the Appellant in treating and disposing of the limitation matter in a summary way. The impugned order is, therefore, illegal and cannot be supported. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the original Court for disposal according to law. Parties are directed to appear in the said Court on 23-12-1986 to receive directions. The Respondent shall be given notice and opportunity to file his counter, whereafter, the case should be set down for hearing and both parties should be directed to adduce oral, as well as, documentary evidence in proof of their respective cases. Parties to bear their own costs. Final Result : Allowed