2007 PLP 2430 (YLR)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

On 26-8-2002 the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.7,30,

000. In the plaint, it was stated that parties knew each other since long and had cordial relations. The petitioner requested for loan of Rs.8,00,

000. The respondent, however, arranged only Rs.7,30,

000. Out of this amount, Rs.6,00,000 were paid in cash and Rs.1,30,000 were paid by means of cheque detailed in para:2 of the plaint. On 19-3-2002 the petitioner acknowledged the? receipt of the said amount and promised to repay the same by executing a .pro note. The repayment date was fixed at 20-8-2002. Upon demand, the petitioner issued a cheque in the said amount detailed in para.3 of the plaint which was dishonoured upon presentation. A decree was accordingly prayed for. The petitioner put in appearance . and filed an application for grant of leave to appear and to defend the suit on 10-12-2002. This application was resisted. The learned A.D.J., Sargodha, dismissed the said application on 1-4-2004, and. directed the respondent to produce the original pro note for his examination. Against this order, Civil Revision No.1344 of 2004 was filed which came up for hearing on 24-5-2004. It was admitted to regular hearing. In Civil Miscellaneous No.1 of 2004 notice was issued and further proceedings were stayed. According to the records on 24-5-2004 which was the date fixed earlier; the suit was decreed. Somehow or the other the learned ADJ, Sargodha, observed that the suit is being decreed ex parte. On 27-7-2004 the petitioner filed an application for setting aside of the ex parte decree which has been dismissed by a learned ADJ, Sargodha, on 8-7-2005.

2. I am told by the learned counsel that the earlier Civil Revision No.1433 of 2004 was withdrawn or disposed of in vier of the passing of the said decree.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ex parte decree was passed illegally particularly when a stay order has been issued by this Court on the same date earlier than the passing of the decree. According to him, the application was within time and it did disclose a plausible defence. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned order.

4. I have gone through the copies of records. So far as the said first contention of the learned counsel is concerned, it is but obvious that the matter was not brought to the notice of this Court in the matter of the alleged violation of the order or otherwise it is to be assumed that the civil revision, was disposed of on the assumption that the decree was passed before the issuance of the stay order by this Court. Be that as it may, one thing is absolutely clear that it was not an ex parte decree. As noted by me above, the application filed by the petitioner was considered and was dismissed on 1-4-2004. The suit was adjourned only as the learned trial Court .wanted to satisfy itself by examining the original pro note. The same was accordingly produced along with the return memos. of the said cheque and the suit was accordingly decreed.

5. I have already noted above the contents of the plaint. In the application filed on 10-12-2002, it was stated that the petitioner has come to know about the suit by means of a notice published in the newspaper. The learned A.D.J. has. observed that the notice was published in the daily Wafaq on 21-11-2002 while the application was filed on 10-12-2002. He found the application to be barred by time in absence of any explanation particularly when the application was not even supported by any affidavit.

6. I have examined the said application. As against the said specific contentions in the plaint with reference to the documents stated to be executed or issued by the petitioner including a cheque and its being bounced upon presentation, it was simply written that the suit has been filed after suppressing the facts and having some forged and fabricated proceedings and that he wants to defend the suit to bring the real facts on record. This hardly constitutes a defence muchless a plausible defence. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed. F.B./M-238/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.