Sakhi Marjan Vs Salman Nawaz

FORM OF ORDER SHEET

Date of Order or other Proceedings with signature ofJudge(s). order or

t7.03.2025

Present:- Mr. Masood-ur-Rehman Wazir, Advocate for the petitioner.

MI1HAMMAD TARTQ AFRlDl, J.' Tluough the instant revision petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge-I, Bannu, f dated 2L.01.2025, whereby he dismissed appeal of the petitioner and maintained the judgment and order of the Civil Judge-XIII, Bannu, dated 12.03.2024. The Civil Judge's decision refused to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated March 12,2024.

2.Brief facts of the case are that on

02.01.2020, the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as respondent) fited a civil suit no.04/1 against the defendant (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) for recovery of Rs.21,20,000/- The petitioner contested the suit by submitting his written statement dated 06/0212021, raising therein several legal and factual objections. The trial court framed five issues based on the divergent pleadings. On 18.12.2023, the

respondent was present in court, but the petitioner failed to appear despite repeated calls. Consequently, the trial court proceeded ex-parte and, after recording the testimony of the respondent and his two witnesses, rendered an ex-parte decree on12.03.2024.

3.On 04.05.2024, the petitioner submitted an application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 12.03.2024. The respondent contested this application, but the trial court ultimately dismissed it on06.07.2024.

4.Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order of the trial court dated 0 06.07.2024, by filing Civil Appeal No.504/13 of 2024, in the Court of Disfrict Judge, Bannu which was entrusted to Additional District Judge-I, Bannu for disposal. After hearing arguments from both parties, the Additional District Judge-I dismissed the appeal on 21.01.2025, upholding the trial court's decision on the grounds that the application to set aside the ex-parte decree was time-barred.

5.Arguments heard and record perused.

6.A review of the record reveals that the petitioner had initially appeared in the suit, but subsequently, after filing written statement, abandoned his participation in the proceedings and consequently, the trial court rendered an ex-parte

decree in favor of the respondent on 12.03.2024. The petitioner subsequently on 04.05'2024, filed an apptication to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 12.03.2024, accompanied by an application for condonation of a delay of 13 months and 22 days in filing the application. However, the petitioner failed to provide any plausible or convincing reason to justiff condonation of such a significant delay' I am not convinced by the arguments presented by the I teamed counsel for the petitioner because the record

clearly indicates that the petitioner had actively a participated in the trial court proceedings before being declared ex-parte, therefore, Article 164 of the Limitation Act is directly applicable, mandating a 30- day timeframe for filing an application to set aside the ex-parte. In a similar case, "shahid Pervaiz alias Shahid Hameed v. Muhammad Ahmad Ameen" (2006 SCMR 631). the Supreme Court of Pakistan, held that where a defendant had initially participated in the trial court proceedings but subsequently failed to appear, resulting in an ex-parte decree, the filing of an application to set aside the decree after four months was deemed time-barred.

7.For what has been discussed above, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Resultantly, the

A Revision petition, being devoid of force, is dismissed in limine.

uL Announced Dt: 17.0i.2025. UKI KifayaUCS* rUDGE

Date ofhearing & onnouncernent ofiudgrnent... ... ... ... ... 17.3.2025 Date of preParation & signing ofiudgment... ... ... .......07.04. 202 5 qcArIIIED

(S.B)

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Afridi