MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The appellant brought a suit for recovery against the respondent, in which the respondent filed an application for leave to appear and defend. The said application was fixed for hearing on 31-3-1998, and on the said date the representative of the plaintiff appeared before the Court and the case was adjourned to 28-5-1998. However, he erroneously informed the date as 28-6-1998 to the counsel and it was, therefore, wrongly incorporated in the record of the lawyer.
Therefore, as none appeared on behalf of the appellant before the trial Court on the said date, the suit was dismissed. The appellant moved an application for restoration of the suit, which too has been disallowed vide order dated 12-2-1999, hence this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the date was erroneously noted and this being a question of fact, if at all the application was to be disallowed the Court had to do so after holding a proper inquiry and recording evidence, which has not been done in the case; besides this, the date 28-5-1998 was not the date of hearing fixed in the case, because it was in the leave application, and at the most the Court could have granted ex parte leave to the respondent.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and found both the contentions well-founded and having force. The date 28-5-1998 was not the date of hearing. Resultantly the suit could not have been dismissed. Moreover, the possibility of noting a wrong date could not be ruled out, and, if the Court wanted to non-suit the appellant, in that eventuality some inquiry should have been held and, at least, the appellant or, the clerk of the counsel, to whom the date was informed, should have been examined. Yet, we find that there was negligence on the part of the appellant. Therefore, while imposing costs of Rs.2,500, the suit is restored and it shall be deemed pending for retrial at the stage where it was dismissed.