MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF

ORDER

The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner under Order 37, C.P.C. before the District Judge, Kasur, who entrusted the same to learned Additional District Judge, Kasur. The learned Additional District Judge Kasur issued notice on prescribed pro forma to the petitioner which was not personally served on 20‑7‑1999 but the petitioner did not filed application for leave to defend within the prescribed period. The same was dismissed as time‑barred by the learned Additional District Judge vide order, dated 4‑10‑1999, hence the present revision petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner did not file application within the prescribed period as the respondent negotiated with the petitioner to settle the dispute outside the Court. The petitioner was defrauded by the respondent but the learned Additional District Judge did not consider this aspect of the case. He further stated that after addition of Article 2A in the Constitution the superior Courts insisted that cases must be decided on merits. He further stated that the order of the learned Additional District Judge is in violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts in 1982 SCMR 673.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that notice was personally served to the petitioner on the prescribed pro forma on 20‑7‑1999. By virtue of Order 37 read with Article 159 of‑ the Limitation Act the petitioner has to file application for leave to‑ defend within ten days from the ‑date of his service out he did not tile the same within the prescribed period. He filed the same after more than 1‑1/2 months of his service. Therefore, trial Court was justified to dismiss the same as time barred as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1993 SCMR 931. It is pertinent to mention here that the! petitioner has not filed an application alongwith the application for leave to defend under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay, therefore, the order', of the learned Additional District Judge is valid as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PLD 1964 SC 236 and the learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any material irregularity E committed by the Additional District Judge, Kasur.

In view of what has been discussed above this revision petition is not maintainable as the principle laid down in the following judgments;

PLD 1955 FC 38 and PLD 1949 PC 26.

This revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑40/L

Revision dismissed.