Honble Sharma, J – The starting point of limitation for filing an application under order 9 rule 13 CPC should be construed from the date of the decree or from the date of knowledge of the decree, is the short question which arises for consideration in this appeal. (2) This question has emerged in the following circumstances:– (i) A suit was instituted by the plaintiffs respondents for recovery of Rs. 1,70,868 -against the defendant apellant in the Trial court. Howerver, on November 30,1992, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte and the suit came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated August 30,1993. (ii) On December 23,1993, the defendant moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.On September 21,1995, an Application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed supported by the affidavits of counsel Sudhir Kumar Tiwari and the defendant. (iii) The said application was dismissed by the Trial court vide order dated September 21,1995. (iv) Against this said order, present action for filing the Misc, Appeal has been resorted to. (3) Mr. Devendra Raghav learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, conten- ded that the court below has committed illegality in not properly appreciating the affidavit filed by the counsel. It has been urged that counter affidavit of one of the plaintiffs was filed but cousel for the plaintiffs has not filed his affidavit. On the other hand Mr. R.K. Mathuer vigorously canvassed that the application submitted under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was time barred in view of the provisions contained in Article 3 of the Limitation Act which provides that for setting a decree passed ex-parte, limitation runs from the date or the decree of whereby the summon or notice was not duly served, from the date when the applicant had knowledge of the decree. In this case the summons was duly served upon the defendant, therefore, the limitation would run from the date of the decree which was August 30,1993 and the application was time barred as the defendant- appellant did not file the application within 30 days from the date of the decree moreover the application under Section 5 was not filed together with the application undre Order 9 Rule 13 CPC but it was filed much after, on September 21/1995, therefore, the impugned order passed by the court below does not suffer from any infirmity. (4) Mr Mathur learned counsel has placed reliance on Gouri Shankar vs. Satyanarain (1) Rawaldas vs. Vasu Devi (2) and Deepchand vs. Nandi Ram Sindhi (3). In Gauri Shanker and others (supra), this court indicated that limitation for application under order 9 rule 13 is 30 days from the date of decree and not 30 days from the date of knowledge of the decree. In this case the application was filed alosmt after more than six months from the date of the decree. It was held that order setting aside the decree was arbitrary and liable to be set aside. In Rawal Das case(supra) it was laid down that if the defendant appears but subsequently absent himself and a decree is passed exparte, time shall be reckoned from the date of the decree. In Deep Chand case(supra) provisions of Article 123 were inter- preted and it was held that the limitation would run from the date of the decree and not from the date of knowledge of the decree. (5) The ratio of all these cases is that the limitation under Article 123 of the Limitation Act would run from the date of decree and not from the date of knowledge of the decree. Now I have to consider as to what would happen when the application for setting aside ex-parte decree is not filed within limitation? If the petitioner is prevented by a sufficient cause from filing the application under order 9 rule 13, within a period of 30 days from the date of the ex-parte decree, he can assign the cause of delay in a petition underArticle 5 of the Limitation Act and can support it by affidavit. (6) In the instant case the cause of delay has been explained by the defendant and by filing an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay, a request was made for setting aside ex-pate decree. The affidavit of learned advocate Sh. Sudhir Kumar Tewari filed in support of application, cannot be disbelieved. (7) Provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, should be construed liberally by the courts. Justice cannot be denied to the parties if technical irregularities were committed by them. The impugned order of the court below is unsustainable as it is not based on proper appreciation of the affidavits filed by the appellant. (7) Provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, should be construed liberally by the courts. Justice cannot be denied to the parties if technical irregularities were committed by them. The impugned order of the court below is unsustainable as it is not based on proper appreciation of the affidavits filed by the appellant. In my view the delay in filing the application, has been properly explained by the appellant. (8) Consequently, I allow this Civil Misc. Appeal and set aside the impugned order. While accepting the application under order 9 rule 13 CPC, I set aside the decree dated August 30, 1993 passed against the defendant appellant on payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the plaintiff respondent. I set the clock back and direct that the defendant appellant shall be allowed to file written statement and to take part in the proceedings in the suit from where he was proceeded exparte. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial court on 3rd March 1997.