1980 PLP 346 (SCMR)

G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.‑The respondent Bank instituted a civil suit against the petitioner in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Abbottabad, for the recovery of Rs. 25,300 on the basis of a Promissory Note. However, when' the case was called in Court on 4th May, 1978, no one was found present on behalf of the respondent Bank with the result that the trial Judge dismissed the suit under Order IX, rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The record would show that in order to seek the setting aside of the said order, the respondent Bank filed an application in the trial Court on which notice was ordered to be issued to the petitioner. In compliance with the said order, the notice of the said application was alleged to have been pasted on the outer door of the house of the petitioner, as also that the same was sent to him on his home address through a registered letter acknowledgement due. On 10th October, 1978, when the case was put up in the Court, the learned Judge recorded the order that since the notice pasted on the outer door of the house of the petitioner had not been satisfactorily proved, its service on the petitioner cannot be held to be good service. However, in respect of the notice sent to him by Registered Post acknowledgement due, he took the presumption that the same ought to have been duly served. But since the petitioner was found absent the learned Judge set aside his previous order with the result that the suit filed by the respondent Bank was restored to its original number and it was directed that the same would proceed for disposal on merits. On 2nd November, 1978, however, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner in Court in which objection was taken to the said order and it was prayed therein that since the same had been passed in his absence it should be set aside and the application filed by the respondent Bank, with a view to seeking the restoration of the suit, be heard on merits. In due course when this application was taken up for hearing, the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner went in revision to the High Court but the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 8th October, 1979. It is in this background that the petitioner has come up to this Court praying for leave to appeal against the judgment or the High Court. To begin with this petition is barred by 29 days. In order to seek the condonation of the said delay, the petitioner has filed an application under rule 3 of Order XLIX of the Rules of this Court in which he has relied on Article 162‑A of the Limitation Act as also that during the relevant period he had gone to Karachi for medical treatment. as he was not well. Apart from the fact that the application in question is not supported by any affidavit, it is clear to us that the said two grounds taken therein are completely misconceived. In s;, far as Article 162‑A of the Limitation Act is concerned, it would not help the petitioner as according to rule 1 of Order XIII of the Rules of this Court, this petition should have been filed within sixty days of the date of the judgment of the High. Court, but admittedly it was filed after 89 days. As to the ground of his sickness taken by him. there is no material to support him to show that during the relevant period he had gone to Karachi for medical treatment. Not only this but his said application has not even been supported by him through an affidavit. It would thus be seen that this petition is barred by 29 days for which the petitioner has not furnished any explanation whatever. Without going into the merits of the case, therefore, we find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.