- (1.) THIS is an application for the revision of the appellate order of the Additional Commissioner I, Jaipur, dated 19-1-1960, whereby the appeal of the opposite party against the order of the Assistant Collector, Jaipur dated 30-8-1958 was accepted.
(2.) THE facts are that the applicants had filed a suit under sec. 177 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against Nanchia, opposite party, and some others. THE service of summons of Nanchia was not made personally, but substituted service was resorted to by the fixture of summons at the house of Nanchia. THE suit was decreed against Nanchia and others. On 2-1-1958, Nanchia, opposite party, filed an application in the trial court for having the ex parte decree against him set aside. He alleged in his application that he had knowledge of the ex parte decree on 1-2-1957. THE trial court rejected the application, disbelieving the plea that Nanchia had no knowledge of the ex parte decree earlier. On an appeal preferred by Nanchia, the learned Additional Commissioner found that on the summons which was intended to be served on Nanchia, opposite party, there was an endorsement that he had changed his residence to Sanganer. THE learned Additional Commissioner, therefore, held that the substituted service was improper. THE appeal was accepted on this ground. The learned counsel for the applicants has pointed out that the learned Additional Commissioner has erroneously taken the date of the presentation of the application of Nanchia for having the ex parte decree set aside to be 30-12-1957, whereas the actual date is 2-1-1958. This contention is borne out by the record. The learned counsel has next argued that according to Nanchia's own application, he had knowledge of the ex parte decree on 1-12-1957 and that his application which was actually presented on 2-1-1958 was outside the period of limitation which is thirty days. The learned counsel urges that this vitiates the order of the learned Additional Commissioner. The contention must be upheld. It is unfortunate that this question of limitation was not raised before the learned Additional Commissioner. However, this does not derogate from the severity of the law of limitation. As held in A. I. R. 1935 P. C. 85, and A. I. R. 55 All. 1107, the courts are bound to apply the law of limitation whether it is pleaded or not. The result is that this application for revision is accepted. The appellate order of the learned Additional Commissioner is set aside and that of the trial court upheld. .;