Limitation for appeal runs from the decree date where a party knowingly abstains from proceedings despite service.

The appellant sought a review of the High Court’s judgment dated February 12, 2026

An ex-parte judgment and decree were passed against the appellant on April 15, 2023

The appellant contended that the delay in filing the appeal should be computed from March 23, 2024—the date he claimed to have first received information regarding the decree

However, the court found that the appellant was aware of the suit proceedings since November 25, 2020

Furthermore, concurrent findings by the Commercial Court (October 29, 2024) and a Division Bench (March 4, 2025) established that summons had been duly served upon the appellant, and these findings had attained finality

1. Whether a party who willfully abstains from suit proceedings despite service of summons can seek to compute the limitation period for an appeal from a date of subsequent "actual" knowledge of the decree

2. Whether the precedent in Bhivchandra Shankar More v. Balu Gangaram More governs the date from which limitation is computed in cases of quiescent litigants

3. Whether a review petition is maintainable for the purpose of re-arguing points already decided in the original judgment

The Court applied the principle of "presumption of knowledge," which dictates that a party aware of suit proceedings is presumed to have knowledge of the resulting judgment and decree

Regarding review jurisdiction, the Court relied on the trite principle that a review petition cannot be used as a tool to re-argue points that were already considered and decided in the main petition

It further distinguished the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bhivchandra Shankar More v. Balu Gangaram More (2019) 6 SCC 387, noting that it did not address the specific issue of the commencement date of limitation for an appeal in this factual context

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that limitation should run from March 2024, emphasizing that since the appellant was served summons in 2020, he cannot plead ignorance of the 2023 decree

The Court reasoned that a party cannot knowingly avoid participation and later seek to extend limitation based on a self-serving claim of "attaining knowledge" through a later written communication

On the second ground, the Court observed that the petitioner was merely attempting to re-argue the applicability of Bhivchandra Shankar More, an issue already resolved in the original judgment

The Court noted that the petitioner failed to contest the finding that the cited precedent did not deal with the computation of the limitation date

Consequently, the Court held that the petition lacked any grounds for review as it sought to re-litigate settled points

The Court held that where a party has knowledge of proceedings, limitation for an appeal must be computed from the date of the judgment and decree (April 15, 2023) and not from a subsequent date of notification

The Court reaffirmed that review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to re-argue a case