Messrs LAHORE ART PRESS through its Proprietor, Muhammad Mohsin.and another vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, ANARKALI BRANCH, LAHORE

' This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the respondent, National Bank of Pakistan, against the petitioners, M/S. Lahore Art Press and another. The petitioners did not file written statement despite having been given several opportunities to do so. Thereafter, they also absented themselves from A the Court and were proceeded against ex parte. The Civil Judge, who was seized of the suit, recorded the respondent's evidence and passed an ex parte decree against the petitioners. Application for setting aside the ex parte decree was made by the petitioners but it was resisted by the respondent on the grounds that there was no sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree and that the application was time-barred. Respondent's pleas found favour with the learned Civil Judge with the result that the application was dismissed. Petitioners went in appeal before an Additional District Judge but without success. Hence this civil revision.

2. Only contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners to demonstrate that there were cogent reasons for setting aside the ex parte decree was that the clerk of their counsel did not inform them about the date of hearing and thereafter the clerk abandoned the job without leaving the case diary in the office of their learned counsel. There is bald statement of the petitioners in support of this plea. Neither the petitioners' counsel nor his clerk entered the witness-box to corroborate his statement. Onus to prove the issue in this regard was on the petitioners but they have miserably failed to do so. Whether or not petitioners had sufficient cause for not participating in the proceedings of the suit before it ended in an ex parte decree was a question of fact on which there is concurrent finding of the learned lower Courts. No discrepancy justifying interference with that finding has been pointed out by the learned counsel. I am, therefore, unable to disturb it.

3. As for the question of limitation, ex parte decree was passed by the learned Civil Judge on 22nd December, 1983 but application for setting aside that decree was made on 1st April, 1984, i.e,, after more than 3 months, although the period of limitation prescribed, therefor by Article 164 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908, is 30 days. This period of 30 days is to be reckoned from the date of the decree or where summons is not duly served, when the applicant has knowledge of the decree. Admittedly, the petitioners entered appearance before the learned trial Court through their learned counsel, before ex parte proceedings were ordered against them. Obviously, this was done on due service of the summonses on them. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioners were duly served with summonses before ex parte decree was passed against them. Period of limitation would, therefore, run from the date of the decree and not from the date when the petitioners came to know of the decree. Application for setting aside the decree should, therefore, have been filed within 30 days of the passing of the ex parte decree but, as indicated above, it was made after more than 3 months thereof. Thus, the application was clearly time-barred.

4. It has been found above that the petitioners have not been able to show sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree. Assuming, without conceding, that they had any such cause.

Their application was badly time-barred. Looked at from any angle, they cannot get rid of the decree which has been earned by them due to their contumacy and gross negligence. I am, therefore, unable to set aside the ex parte decree.

5. Resultantly, this civil revision fails. It is dismissed with costs.