JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member - The facts are: An application for correction of papers was moved by Barsati on 1.12.72 in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer. Notices were issued to opposite party, Jokhu. Their appearance was not put in. An enquiry report of Naib Tahsildar was received on 2.2.73. Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 19.5.73 has allowed correction as set out in the application of Barsati. 2. A restoration application was moved by Jokhu on 31.1.85. He said that no summon was served upon him and he did not know about the ex parte order. It has been requested that order dated 19.5.7 5 be set aside. An application under Section 5 Indian Limitation Act was filed along with an affidavit. The request for setting aside of the ex parte order was opposed by Barsati in his objection. Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 17.3.88 has rejected the restoration application. 3. Aggrieved by this order Jokhu lodges a revision in Commissioner's. Additional Commissioner by his order dated 7.12.89 rejects the revision. So this revision by Jokhu in this court. 4. Heard the counsel for and against the revision. 5. Whether summons sent from court were served on opposite party in accordance with paragraphs 73, 74 and 75 of the Revenue Court Manual? The report of process server on the summon of Jokhu's father Panchu is that he refused to take the summon and one foil thereof was affixed on the door of the house. Almost similar is the report on the summons of rest of 10 men of opposite side. Paragraph 76 of Revenue Court Manual is plain that if the person addressed is absent and process server after using all due and reasonable diligence cannot find him or his agent or any adult member of his family, he shall affix a copy of the summon to the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house. Paragraph 75 says that if summons is attached to the door of a house, an acknowledgment of its being posted shall be taken, if in a town from two respectable neighbours and if in a village, as far as possible, from the Pradhan or Up Pradhan and Patwari or Chaukidar. The failure to take an acknowledgment where service is by affixation will not amount to due service in the absence of credible explanation. The failure to take an acknowledgment where service is by affixation will not amount to due service in the absence of credible explanation. Why the process server did not take an acknowledgment? So there was no service of process on opposite party. In this view the ex parte order dated 19.5.73 cannot stand. 6. The counsel for opposite party argues that restoration application is moved with a delay of 12 years as original order is dated 19.5.73 and restoration application has been moved on 31.1.85. he said the application is time barred. I do not agree. Is the application beyond the prescribed limitation of 15 days? Section 201, Land Revenue Act states "From the date of such order "means the date of the knowledge of the order." I govern myself by two opinions mediated in A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1500: A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1605. The eluciation is: "Where rights of any person are affected by any order and limitation is provided for enforcement of the remedy by the person affected actual or constructive communication of the order to the party concerned is necessary". In the case in hand, no knowledge of the ex parte order was ever communicated to Jokhu or his father Panchu. The awareness came to applicant on 29.1.85. Restoration application set in motion on 31.1.85. This is well within time. I am further supported in reasoning and exposition in 1985 R.D. 333 H.C. The plea of bar of limitation fails. 7. The revision is allowed. Order of Additional Commissioner dated 7.12.89 and Sub-Divisional Officer's dated 17.8.88 are set aside. In consequence thereof order dated 19.5.73 goes down. Barsatie application comes under consideration. This be disposed of according to law.