' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---Shortly narrated the facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision are, that Shadeed Hussain, plaintiff instituted suit against Khadim Hussain, defendant for recovery of Rs,66901 as outstanding dues on account of purchase of household articles from the shop of the plaintiff. The defendant contested the suit and denied the claim of the plaintiff.
Relevant issues, arising out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, were formulated for trial.
When the case was fixed for plaintiff's evidence on 5-1-2001, the defendant remained absent which resulted in passing of an ex parte decree against him by order, dated 7-1-2004. On 30-4-2004 defendant moved an application for setting aside ex parte decree on the ground enumerated therein. The application was supported by an affidavit. The application having been contested, was accepted by order, dated 11-11-2004. An appeal was preferred thereagainst which was converted into Revision Petition No,12 of 2005 and dismissed by order, dated 21-3-2005 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kohat and matter was remanded to the trial Court with direction to decide the same on merits.
2. Mr. Haider Zaman Shinwari, Advocate appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that material available on the record has not been appreciated in its true perspective and application for cancellation of ex parte decree was hopelessly time-barred in terms of Article 164 of the Limitation Act and thus should not have been entertained and decided in favor of the respondent.
To augment the contentions, he placed reliance on Honda Atlas Cars (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Honda Sarhad (Pvt.) Ltd. And others (2005 SCM R 609). As against that, Syed Mazhir Hussain, Advocate for the respondent refuted the view-point portrayed by learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned order whole heartedly.
3. Having considered the matter from all angles, I am of the view that the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are not substantial and the application for cancellation of ex parte decree has been filed well within time. Since the respondent had appeared in Court in response to the summons issued and contested the suit and thereafter absented on 5-1-2001, therefore, the period of limitation available to him for filing application for setting aside ex parte decree was three years under Article 181 of the Limitation Act and not 30 days. A similar question came up for hearing before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Messrs Rehman Weaving Factory (Regd) Bahawalnagar v. Punjab Small Industries Corporation, Lahore PLD 1981 SC 21, wherein it was observed that:--
4. "The next question arises as to what would be the period, oflimitation for an application for setting aside an ex parte decree, not covered by Article 164. That application may or may not be under section 151. It could still be under the second part of Rule-13 of Order IX, though in some cases section 151 might also apply. When defendant makes an application under Order IX, Rule 13 in connection with an ex parte decree, which is not passed under Rule 6 of Order IX (on the first hearing), it would not be governed by Article 164. But that would not necessarily mean that there is no period of limitation for such an application. It is not essential here to examine the effect of 'null and void order' ,on the question of limitation; is simple that where the defendant makes an application for setting aide an ex parte decree, which is not covered by Article 164, it would be governed by residuary Article 181 and the period of limitation would be three years from the accrual of the right to apply. Undoubtedly this period of limitation would be more than necessary in some of these applications but so would be the case in several other applications covered by Article 181.
It is for the Legislature to do the exercise of rationalization, in the light of experience gain during ihree quarters of a country."
' Following the dictum laid down in the above cited case-law this Court in Water and Power Development Authority v. Muhammad Hayat Khan and 7 others PLD 1986 Pesh. 81 observed that:-- "We understand that PLD 1981 SC 21 is the latest authority in time laying down a law in unequivocal terms and language which is binding on all other courts in the country as provided under Article 189 of the Constitution and as such we will respectfully follow it. We accordingly hold that in cases of applications for setting aside the ex parte decrees other than those passed under Order IX, Rule (6)(1)(a), C.P.C. The law of limitation shall be Article 181 and not Article 164. In the present case the ex parte decree was passed under Order XVII, Rule 2 read with Order IX, C.P.C. On 6-1-1980 at the time when the plaintiff had since closed their evidence in the case and it was necessarily not a stage of first hearing. Application for setting aside of the ex parte decree was filed on 18-12-1982 within a period of 3 years from the date of the ex parte decree and the application shall be, therefore, accepted within time."
4. It is well-settled principle of law that in case the trial Court has exercised jurisdiction which is upheld by the first Appellate Court, this Court seldom interferes unless and until the discretion is exercised arbitrarily. It is also settled principle of law that this Court has verylimited jurisdiction to interfere in concurrent findings of Courts below while exercising jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.
Unless and until judgments of the Courts below are result of misreading or non-reading of evidence or decision of the case is in violation of parameters prescribed by the superior Courts.
5. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, finding no substance in this Civil Revision. I dismiss the same with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.