1991 PLP 296 (CLC)

Bashir A. Ranjah for Petitioners. On 4‑1‑1986, Mohammad Ayub and three others filed suit for the recovery of Rs.22,856 against Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad and Ch. Mohammad Sharif petitioners in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat.

2. It was averred in the plaint that Iftikhar Ahmad defendant had obtained Rs.32,000 from them on the pretext of sending them abroad. On his failure to send them abroad, they (plaintiffs) demanded back their amount on which Ch. Mohammad Sharif defendant No.2 stood surety. Thereafter, defendant No.1 made part payment but refused to pay the suit money. The defendants were duly served. They engaged Ch. Mohammad Munir Gondal, Advocate as counsel. Since the defendants‑petitioners and their counsel did not appear before the trial Court, so the suit was decreed against them ex parte on 24‑1‑1989. On 8‑2‑1989, the petitioners file application for setting aside the ex parte decree. This application was contested and six issues were framed. Iftikhar Ahmad petitioner appeared as AWL lie stated that he had engaged Ch. Mohammad Munir Gondal, Advocate as his counsel who told them that their appearance in the Court was not necessary and that he would call them as and when their presence was required. He further stated that it was on 8‑2‑1989 that he carne to know about the ex parte decree against him. He further stated that Mr. Mohammad Manir Gondal, his counsel had remained ill for sufficient time and as such, could not appear before the Court. To rebut this evidence, the respondents‑plaintiffs produced Ch. Mohammad Munir Gondal, the counsel of the petitioners as R.W.1 who stated that the defendants‑respondents neither contacted him nor had given any instructions, so he did not appear on the date of hearing. He further stated that he was present in the courts on 22‑1‑1989 and 24‑1‑1989. The learned trial Court dismissed the application on 8‑1‑1990. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners riled appeal which was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gujrat on 27‑6‑1990. hence this revision.

3. Before me, the learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the findings of the Courts below on issue No.5 which is as under:‑ Issue No.

5. Whether there are sufficient reasons to set aside the ex parte decree dated 2.l 1‑198')? OP P The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ch. Mohammad Munir Gondal, Advocate had told the petitioners not to attend the Court on each and every date of hearing and that he would inform them as and when their attendance would be required in the Court and that on 3‑3‑1988 when the petitioners were ordered to be ex proceeded against ex parte on account of their nor‑appearance, Ch. Mohammad Munir Gondal, Advocate counsel for the petitioners was ill and as such, could not appear in the Court and that the findings of the Courts below suffer from misreading/non‑reading of the evidence,

4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners with care. t have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that issue No.5 is an issue of fact. The courts below have concurrently found this issue against the petitioners. Ch. Mohammad Munir Gondal, Advocate, has not supported the petitioners. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading/non‑reading of the evidence by the courts below. I do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders.

5. Pursuant to the above discussion I do not see any justification to interfere in exercise of the revisional power of this Court with the well‑reasoned orders of the Courts below. So the revision application is dismissed in limine. A.A./1‑225/L Revision dismissed .