1989 PLP 2173 (MLD)

SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI,, J.--The petitioner has challenged in this petition the orders of the 8th Civil Judge, Karachi East dated 13-12-1987 and that of revisional authority, namely 4th Additional District Judge, Karachi dated 2-4-1988. The petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 495/87 against the respondent No. 1 in which some interim relief was also granted in his favour. The petitioner complained before the Court for taking action against respondent No. 1 for allegedly violating the order of injunction issued by the Court. It appears that on 19-10-1987 when the suit was fixed for recording of evidence of the parties on the application a/s. 39 rule 2 (3) C.P.C. filed by the petitioner against the respondent No. 1 and for filing of written statement respondent No. 1 and his counsel were absent and as such the suit was ordered to be proceeded ex parte. The petitioner also filed his ex parte proof before the Court but before ex parte decree could be passed in the case, respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Court for setting aside the; ex parte order passed against him on 19-10-1987. This application of the respondent No. 1 was accepted by the Court and ex parte order against him was set aside on payment of costs of Rs. 200/-. The petitioner who was not satisfied with this order filed a revision application before 4th Addl. District Judge, Karachi East, which has been dismissed. The petitioner has challenged both these orders and the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two-fold contention in support of the petition. It is firstly contended by the learned counsel that the application for setting aside of ex parte order under Order 9 Rule 7 was time-barred as it should have been made on the next date of hearing, namely, 25-7-1987 to which the suit was adjourned. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the effect of setting aside of the ex parte order is that the respondent No. 1 has been permitted to file written statement which could not be done as there was no prayer in the application filed by the respondent No. 1 before the trial Court seeking permission to file written statement. None of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel has any merit. There is no limitation prescribed for filing of an application under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. either in the CPC or in the Limitation Act. In these circumstances the residuary Article in the Limitation Act, namely, Article 181 will be applicable which prescribes a period of 3 years for filing such an application. With regard to the second contention of learned counsel it may be mentioned here that the orders passed by the Court below we're discretionary in nature and nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel to show that the discretion was exercised contrary to any settled principle of law or perversely or arbitrarily. There is no merit in this petition which is dismissed summarily. M.Y.H/S-407/K Petition dismissed.