P L D 1986 Lahore 135 (PLP)

This appeal has arisen out of an application filed by the respondents, Messrs Muhammad Saeed Malik, against the appellants, Province of the Punjab and another, for making an award a rule of Court. The appellants filed objections to the award but as their objections were time‑barred they were not considered and the application was allowed. Order of the learned Civil Judge in this behalf has been challenged in the instant appeal.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that on 27th February, 1985 the learned Civil Judge ordered ex parse proceedings against the appellants and that it was on 11th March, 1985 that ex parte proceedings were set aside by him. It was, therefore, maintained by the learned counsel that the period from 27th February, 1985 to 11th March, 1985 deserved to be excluded from the period during which the appellants were required to file objections. It was, however, conceded by him that if the above period was not so excluded, their objections would be time barred.

3. It was also urged by learned counsel for the appellants that the order by which the appellants were proceeded against ex parte was a nullity in the eye of law inasmuch as on 27th February, 1985, when order in this regard was passed, the case came up before the learned Civil Judge for further proceedings and not for hearing.

4. If the order regarding ex parte proceedings was a nullity in the eye of law the appellants should have ignored it as such and filed objec tions within the time allowed by law. Law is well‑settled on the point that if ex parse proceedings are ordered against a party, that party can participate in proceedings taking place after the date on which he is proceeded against ex parte, without seeking recall of the order by which he was directed to be proceeded against ex Parse. That order is required to be set aside only if the party wants re‑opening of proceedings held in his absence. In the instant case, nothing substantial was done on 27th February, 1985 inasmuch as on the above date the learned Civil Judge simply ordered ex parte proceedings against the appellants and adjourned the case to 12th March, 1985 for further proceedings. The appellants could, therefore, file objections on any date after 27th February. 1985, despite the order made on 27th February, 1985, without getting that order set aside, because filing of objections by them after the above date would have amounted to their participation in further proceedings of the case, that is. proceedings following the date on which they were proceeded against ex parte. I would also like to mention here that the appellants are themselves to blame for their absence on 27th February, 1985, and the well known maxim of law is that no party can take benefit of his own wrong. Looked from any angle, the appellants cannot get over the difficulty of limitation on the score of ex parte proceedings ordered against them.

5. As stated earlier, it was conceded by learned counsel for the appel lants that the appellants' objections would be time‑barred if they are not allowed benefit of ex parte proceedings ordered against them.

6. In view of the above discussion I bold that there is nothing wrong with the order of the learned Civil Judge by which it was held by him that the objections of the appellants were time‑barred and, therefore, the objections could not be considered.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants did not raise any plea against the order under challenge except the one which has been repelled above.

8. Resultantly, this appeal fails. It is dismissed in limine. M. B. A. Appeal dismissed.