P.N.Mookerjee, J. - (1.) This rule raises an important question under Section. 17 of the new Limitation Act. The rule arises under the following circumstances
(2.) The petitioner was the defendant in the connected ejectment suit, brought by the opposite party. The suit was, eventually, fixed for hearing on 30th August, 1965. The petitioner had entered appearance in the suit, filed his written statement and was contesting the suit-But on this date of hearing, he was absent and the suit was decreed ex parte. There* after, the instant application was filed for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on 14th December, 1965, upon the allegation. Enter alia, that the date, noted in his lawyer's diary, was 27th November, 1965, for settling the date of hearing, and, on that date, the mistake was discovered and the instant application was eventually filed on the 14th of December, 1965.
(3.) This application under Order 9, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure was followed by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay if any. In the making of the said application.;