' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 8-3- 2006 of a learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby Writ Petition No,227 of 2006 filed by him was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of instant petition are that Mst. Jehan Ara respondent brought a suit against petitioner Iftikhar Ahmad Khan for recovery of maintenance as well as dowry amount and other expenses. It was alleged in the plaint that marriage of Jehan Ara respondent was solemnized with petitioner on 26-11-1998 and out of this wedlock two children were born. Later on relations between the spouses got strained and petitioner divorced respondent No,1.
The trial Court summoned the petitioner but when his service could not be effected through ordinary means, even publication was made in the daily "Pakistan", Lahore, but he did not turn up.
On 13-4-2005 when the matter was fixed for hearing, petitioner did not appear, therefore, ex parte proceedings were ordered. In proof of ex parte proceedings, respondent No,1 adduced her evidence and got examined herself as P.W.1. On relying the version of respondent No,1, an ex parte decree for recovery of dower, maintenance and medical expenses was passed against the petitioner vide judgment and decree, dated 9-9-2003.
3. It was for the first time that on 2-2-2005 an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed by petitioner wherein he stated that he came to the knowledge of above decree a few days ago, as such application was within time. However, it was not at all accompanied by application for condonation of delay. The trial Court summoned the opposite party who appeared and raised several legal and factual objections by filing written statement. On 13-4-2005 after hearing both the parties, the trial Court accepted the application and set aside the ex parte decree on payment of cost of Rs,2,000. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No,1 challenged the same by filing appeal before the learned Additional District Judge-VII, Peshawar which was allowed and the order, dated 9-9- 2003 passed by the trial Court was set side vide judgment dated 13-10-2005. The petitioner approached the learned High Court by filing Writ Petition No,227 of 2006 which too was dismissed vide impugned order.
4. We have heard Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the learned High Court is not sustainable in law as the same is based on non-appraisal of record. He contended that petitioner was not properly served. He further contended that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by petitioner has been decreed ex parte in his favour at Karachi. According to him no opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce his evidence in support of his application for setting aside ex parte decree and was condemned unheard. He contended that respondent has miserably failed to prove that the petitioner had got any knowledge of the suit, proceedings or ex parte decree. He further contended that the learned High Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has wrongly held that the petitioner was served in accordance with law as he had not received any summons or any newspaper particularly when the address of the petitioner was wrongly given by the respondents.
6. The record shows that on 2-5-2003 respondents filed a suit for maintenance and recovery of dower amount before the trial Court. The trial Court summoned the petitioner through registered A.D. Cover but the same was returned unserved with the report that the petitioner was not available on the given address. Thereafter, the trial Court published a notice against the petitioner in Daily "Pakistan", Lahore, but in vain. On 9-9-2003 an ex parte decree was passed in favour of respondents against the petitioner by the trial Court on merits after examining respondent No,1 as P.W.1. It was after one and a half years, petitioner filed application for setting aside ex parte decree before the trial Court on 2-2-2005 without mentioning any valid and cogent ground for not filing the same well in time. Even application for condonation of delay was not filed. In the aforesaid application, the address given by the petitioner was the same as mentioned in the plaint on which initially the lower Court sent summons through Registered/A.D. It shows that the trial Court adopted all legal modes for effecting the service on petitioner but neither petitioner nor anyone else on his behalf attended the Court. After publication in the daily "Pakistan", Lahore, the trial Court was justified to pass ex parte order against the petitioner. Even otherwise under the law, the petitioner was supposed to file the application for setting aside ex parte decree within the stipulated period of limitation but he did not file the same within time and rather he filed the same after the delay of one and half years. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner is the first cousin of respondent No,1; therefore, being the family member had the full knowledge of the case. There is no reason to believe that the petitioner did not know about the suit. We do not find any legal infirmity in the judgment of the High Court, which is neither slipshod nor arbitrary.
7. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.