Section 9, 115, 151 and O IX, Rr 6, 13 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Articles 164 and 181 of the suit, Dover, the former order for restoration of the articles and restitution of the dowry, to the defendants concerning the limitation One side was absent. The court faced the former party decree, the trial court refused to revoke the ex parte decree, because the former party decree by the defendant under OIX, R13, CPC. The application for separation was barred under Article 164 of the Constitution Act, the first appellate court of 1908 upheld the ex parte decree passed by the trial court, when the court approved the ex parte decree, Under IX, R 13, CPC, treatment was provided against determining the same issue under which defendants could file a lawsuit. The petition to set aside the former party decree stated that the application should be sufficiently rescinded to justify the defendant's non-appearance on the date of the approval of the previous decree. And said the application must be filed within 30 days, under OMX, R13 under Article 164 of the Remote Act, 1908, the CPC was only available to a defendant when the former party decree was issued , When the trial was called for. The current date of the former party order was set for filing a written statement, saying that the date was not the due date for the hearing of the former party decree passed by the trial court, which is OX, R 6, CPC. Didn't get in the car. Without the jurisdiction of any law, in the eyes of the law it was void and unclean, pursuant to section 151, CPC
