Sanjay Misra, J.: - Heard Sri Ajay Yadav learned Counsel for the appel­lant. 2. This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1979 passed in Civil Appeal No. 115 of 1978 by the Civil Judge, Allahabad whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 9.2.1978 passed in Original Suit No. 551 of 1975 by the Additional Munsif, Allahabad has been confirmed. 3. At the time when this appeal was admitted on 27.9.1979 the following substantial question of law has been framed : (1) Whether the order of the learned Munsif dated 15.2.1965 holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and returning the plaint for presen­tation to the revenue Court would operate as res judicata as the defendants-respondents did not challenge the validity of that order in the higher Courts and allowed the order to become final? (2) Whether the defendants-respondents having acquiesced to the or­der dated 15.2.1965, are estopped from presenting the same plaint to the Civil Court which was earlier returned by it for presentation to the revenue Court? 4. Sri Ajay Yadav has submitted that the limitation for filing the instant suit commenced on the date on which the plaintiff derived knowledge of the decree in Suit No. 189 of 1969. He states that both the Courts below have ille­gally held that the suit was beyond the period of limitation of three years provided under Article 59 of the Indian Limitation Act and have therefore il­legally dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. 5. Sri Sankatha Rai learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defen­dant-respondents had defended the impugned orders and states that the suit was beyond time and hence was rightly dismissed by both the Courts below. 6. Having considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record the instant suit was filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.1.1972 passed in Suit No. 189 of 1969. The instant suit was filed on 6.10.1975. Admittedly the said date of filing of the suit was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Article 59 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act. The instant suit was filed on 6.10.1975. Admittedly the said date of filing of the suit was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Article 59 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act. The submission of learned Counsel for the plaintiff was that the limitation would start from the date when the plaintiff came to know about the decree and it was stated that the plaintiff came to know about the decree when his property was attached in execution of the decree. The afore­said submission of the plaintiff was turned down by both the Courts below. The finding recorded with respect to knowledge about the ex parte decree dated 28.1.1971 passed in Suit No. 189 of 1969 has been discussed by the Courts below on the basis of the record of the suit. The relevant portion of the judgment of the First Appellate Court is quoted here under : "In the instant case it is no doubt true that the ex parte decree in Suit No. 189 of 1969 was not passed in the presence of the plaintiff-appellant. But the history of the case would show that the summons had been served upon the plaintiff-appellant and he had made an application Ex. A-9 on 17.12.1969 for time to file written statement. The plaint was rejected on 17.10.1970 but was restored on 7.8.1971 when the review application was allowed Ex. 11 on 12.8.1971. The plaintiff-appellant made an application for setting aside the order dated 7.8.1971 restoring the suit to its original number. This application was rejected on 18.8.1971. Thus on 18.8.1971 the plaintiff-appellant had full knowledge, that the suit stood restored and the summons had been held to have been served upon him. Actually speak­ing it will be presumed that the plaintiff-appellant had the knowledge of the ex parte judgment from the very beginning. His contention that it was for the first time on 25.7.1973 when the Amin went to the spot to deliver the possession in Execution Case No. 67 of 1973 that he came to know about the ex parte decree in without force. The findings of the learned Munsif on Issue No. 8 suffer from no infir­mity so as to warrant any interference. The result is that the appeal deserved dismissed. The findings of the learned Munsif on Issue No. 8 suffer from no infir­mity so as to warrant any interference. The result is that the appeal deserved dismissed. No other point was argued before me." From the aforementioned findings recorded by the Courts below admittedly the suit filed on 6.10.1975 was beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a suit for cancellation of an ex parte decree. 7. The substantial question of law No. 2 framed in this appeal is there­fore answered on the basis of concurrent findings of fact as negative. The plain­tiff had knowledge of the ex parte decree passed in Suit No. 189 of 1969 and his filing the Suit on 6.10.1975 was clearly beyond the period of limitation. 8. No other point has been pressed by learned Counsel for the appellant. The second appeal is therefore dismissed. 9. No order is passed as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.