' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- In a suit filed by the respondent No,3 against the petitioner for recovery of maintenance, dower and dowry, the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte on 9-1- 2006. It may be noted here that this date was fixed for pre-trial reconciliation proceedings and on the previous date, the case was adjourned as the respondent (plaintiff) had been absent. Be that as it may, on 15-4-2006 the petitioner filed an application for setting aside of the ex parte proceedings. A reply was filed. Vide order, dated 2-6-2006 the learned Judge, Family Court, dismissed the said application on the ground that it is barred by time. An appeal filed against this order has been dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Layyah, on 21-6-2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no limitation having been prescribed for an application of the instant nature, the learned Courts below have wrongly rejected the application.
Learned counsel for the respondent No,2 finds it difficult to support the impugned orders.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. To my mind, in the first instance, the learned trial Court could not have passed any adverse order against the petitioner, the reason being that the parties had been ordered to appear in person and the plaintiff herself was not present on 9-1-2006.
I have already stated above that on the previous date i,e, 14-12-2005, the case was adjourned because the respondent was not present whereas the petitioner was present in person. In any case, the learned trial Court had been continuously adjourning the case thereafter for recording the ex parte evidence on the request of the respondent's counsel and it was on one of such dates that the petitioner filed the said application. It is well-settled that a defendant who had been proceeded against ex parte is not to be precluded from joining the proceedings. This writ petition accordingly is allowed. Both the impugned orders are declared to be without lawful authority and are set aside. The ex parte proceedings ordered on 9-1-2006 against the petitioner are also set aside. He will join the proceedings and the trial shall be concluded and matters decided by the learned trial Court before the year 2006 is out.
4. A copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to the learned trial Court.