Per Arun Kumar Goel, Judge 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated: 07.10.1996 passed by learned District Judge, Jammu in file No.l46/Misc. Appeal. By means of impugned judgment order passed by the City Judge, Jammu in file No. 12/Misc. dated: 15.03.1995 has been upheld; thus the dismissal of application under order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC filed by the petitioners for setting aside judgment and decree of the trial court in file No.63/Civil dated: 31.10.1990 has been upheld. 2. Facts regarding which learned counsel for the parties were not at variance are that a suit titled "Raghuriath Singh vs Madan Lal & another" was filed in the court of City Judge, Jammu. This was registered as file No.63/Civil. Exparte decree came to be passed in it on 31.10.1990 and it was held that defendants not being the sons of Late Sansar Singh are not entitled to inherit the property of deceased Sansar Singh, whereas plaintiff being the only heir and successor-in-interest is entitled to inherit the property left by deceased Sansar Singh. Defendants were further restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and further restrained from alienating or changing the nature of the same. 3. Petitioners were proceeded against exparte on the basis of presumption having been raised against them on 21.08.1990, reason was that notices sent by registered post were not received back either delivered or undelivered. In these circumstances presumption of service under Section 5 Rule 19-A of the CPC was raised by the trial court and thereafter petitioners were proceeded against exparte, which culminated in passing of the decree as noted hereinabove. 4. Petitioners filed an application under order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside exparte judgment and decree of the trial court dated: 31.10.1990 on the plea that they came to know of the passing of this decree when on 17.01.1991 respondent in execution of the decree came to take possession of the suit land. They further pleaded that till this date they were not aware of this decree having been passed. Their parentage was wrongly shown as Sunit singh, which in fact is Sansar Singh. They were never served with any process not did they refuse the same, this application was accompanied with an application under order 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Their parentage was wrongly shown as Sunit singh, which in fact is Sansar Singh. They were never served with any process not did they refuse the same, this application was accompanied with an application under order 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Application for setting aside exparte decree as well as for condonation of delay was contested and resisted by the respondent-plaintiff, his simple case was that the application is barred by time and petitioners were duly served when they were proceeded against exparte by operation of law. In the aforesaid background Madan Lal. applicant appeared as his own witness and D.K.Singh appeared as attorney of Des Raj, the other petitioner. They also examined post Master R.S.Pura as their witness. On the other hand Raghunath Singh appeared as his own witness and produced Balbir Singh Post Man and Angrez Singh. 5. Trial court dismissed the application, and when the said order was challenged in appeal, order of the trial court was affirmed, hence this revision. 6. Heard learned counsel and with their assistance record of the courts below has also been examined. Learned counsel for the parties referred to the evidence examined during the course of proceedings under order 9 Rule 13 before the trial court. Both of them have referred to the evidence examined by the parties in detail which was read over by them in vernacular. After considering the whole matter it is felt that the evidence of Postman and Postmaster is material besides that of D.K.Singh. As per D.K.Singh, who is attorney & wifes brother of petitioner Des Raj, it has come on record that Des Raj was in the Army in 1990 and the witness was prosecuting the litigation for the last 13 years. So far both the petitioners not being at home when balbir Singh Postman went to deliver registered letters purpottly containing the court notices is concerned, he (Postman) specifically states that both the petitioners were not at the residence. Ladies in the houses are stated to have declined to accept the registered letters, this fact coupled with the statement of D.K.Singh, attorney of Des Raj, establishes that Des Raj was not at home and was posted in Army. Similarly when a reference is made to the statement of Postmaster who appeared as a witness in this case, he has produced the certificate EXPM. Similarly when a reference is made to the statement of Postmaster who appeared as a witness in this case, he has produced the certificate EXPM. no record had been brought by the witness on the basis whereof this document was prepared. This aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by both the courts below. Another intriguing fact that has come in the statement of Postmaster is that the registered letters were received bake with the report that correct parentage is not recorded, it is not understood as to when Des Raj was not at home, which of the petitioners intimated that parentage was not correctly recorded. Angrez Singh witness produced by the respondent states that Madan Lal, applicant and wife of Des raj who were present in home refused to accept the registered letters when they were told that it had come from the court of City Judge, Jammu. he is contradicted by none-else but by the Postman himself, who has gone on record to state that he went to deliver the registered letters to Des Raj and Madan Lal and had told that those have come from the court of City Judge, Jammu, but they refused to receive the same saying that name of their father is not correctly given. It was thereafter that he made the report, he has again stated that none of them was present, but their wives were there and were shown the registered letters, he categorically admits that Des Raj was in the Army in those days. 7. So far statutory presumption to the postal endorsement in concerned, it is rebutable provided it is shown that the address is correct and it is prepaid. In the instant case the statement of Postman produced by the respondent coupled with what has been discussed above, presumption is rebutted in no uncertain terms. There are three versions that has come on record, viz. Madan Lal and wife of Des Raj was there, then other version is that registered letters were shown to both the petitioners, and the third version given by the Postman is that none of the petitioners were there but registered notices were shown to their wives. There are three versions that has come on record, viz. Madan Lal and wife of Des Raj was there, then other version is that registered letters were shown to both the petitioners, and the third version given by the Postman is that none of the petitioners were there but registered notices were shown to their wives. On this evidence no presumption can be raised and alternately even if one at all can be raised as was forcefully urged by Shri Pangotra, it stands adequately rebutted by the statement of Madan Lal and attorney of Des Raj, Petitioner. 8. Shri Pangotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent forcefully urged that application was barred by time as it was filed after the expiry of 30 days, the period prescribed for setting aside decree, as such, the orders passed by both the courts below need to be upheld. 9. This argument need not detain us any further in view of the admitted position that personal service was admittedly not effected upon the petitioners. Article 164 of the J&K Limitation Act, 1995 (1938 AD) comes to the rescue of the petitioners, for ready reference it is extracted hereinbelow: Description of application Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run 164. By a defendant for an order to set aside a decree passed exparte Thirty days The date of decree or where the summons was not duly served, when applicant has knowledge of the decree. 10. Admitted case of the petitioners is that they for the first time came to know on 17th January, 1991 regarding passing of the exparte decree and the application for setting aside exparte decree was filed by them on 19th January, 1991, as such, it cannot be said that it was barred by time in view of the factual and legal position explained hereinabove. Findings to the contrary recorded by both the courts below are accordingly not sustainable in this behalf and are thus reversed. 11. Shri Pangotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contested the claim of the petitioners by arguing that in exercise of powers vested in this court under Section 115 of the CPC, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Shri Pangotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contested the claim of the petitioners by arguing that in exercise of powers vested in this court under Section 115 of the CPC, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. According to him current findings cannot be interfered with, in this behalf he referred to AIR 1979 Rajasthan 108, "Prakash Chander vs. Smt. Sunder Bai & another" and AIR 1988 Calcutta 400, "R.S.Cambray & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Bishnu Banerjee". According to him even if findings recorded by the trial court are erroneous, still unless those had something to do with jurisdiction, this court would not interfere with the impugned order. Examination of the impugned orders clearly suggests that both the courts below have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them according to law and at the same time exercised it illegally and with material irregularity, in the face of facts discussed hereinabove in no case the application for setting aside exparte decree could be said to be barred by time, still findings have been recorded to the contrary. 12. On examination of evidence both the courts have acted illegally by dismissing the application. When evidence, as briefly discussed hereinabove, is appreciated in its right perspective it cannot be said that the courts below exercised jurisdiction vested in them according to law while passing the impugned order, in the case of R.S.Cambrary & Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) a Division Bench of High Court clearly observed that errors of law and fact having no relation to the jurisdiction decision cannot be interfered with in the revision. As a corollary to this it is obvious that where such a decision relates to jurisdiction of the court within the ambit of Section 115(1) of the CPC decision can be interfered with. So far decision in the case of Prakash Chander (supra) is concerned, what has been observed regarding powers of the court in a case like the present one is in the following terms: "16. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents vehemently urged that the impugned order is the order of the learned District Judge and there is no illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction in the order of the learned District Judge or even of the learned Civil Judge, so this court should not enter into the legality or otherwise of the exparte order passed on 12.04.1977. The supervisory jurisdiction of the court can only be exercised in respect of the impugned order. I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. In an application for setting aside exparte decree, the question of summons having been duly served is required to be examined and in that connection it is to be seen as to whether compliance of 0.5, Rule 19-A has been made and if the courts, while deciding an application for setting aside exparte decree takes a wrong view, then it is open to correction by this court under its powers under Section 115, CPC." 13. For the reasons set out hereinabove as also on examination of the whole case it is felt that both the courts below had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them according to law and has also exercised the same illegality and with material irregularity. As a consequence of it this revision petition as well as the application filed by the petitioiners under order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside exparte decree in File No:63/Civil on 31.10.1990 in case titled as "Raghunath Singh vs. madan Lal & another" passed by City Judge, Jammu, both are allowed and consequently the said exparte decree is hereby set aside with no order as to costs. 14. Record of the suit file is here. Registry is directed to send the same to the trial court, where the parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear on 30th September, 2000. Petitioners/defendants shall file their written statement on that date and thereafter the trial court will proceed further in the matter with utmost expedition and despatch, keeping in view the fact that the main suit was filed more than a decade ago, it is ordered that the trial court will proceed for disposal of this case with utmost despatch and expedition and will make all out efforts for its disposal at the earliest and in no case later than 31st December, 2001. This direction is pre-emptory for being carried out by the trial court. No fresh notice to be issued by the trial court as date is fixed by this order.