' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.---This petition is directed against order, dated 15-7-2006, passed by the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, whereby the review application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery under Order XXXVII Rule 2, C.P.C. For Rs,3,70,350 on the basis of promissory note, leave was granted conditionally to the defendant, he was directed to furnish security in the sum of Rs,4 lac till 18-5-2005, the defendant/petitioner did not comply with this order resultantly, vide order, dated 18-5-2005, his application for leave to appear and defend the suit was dismissed and the suit was decreed for Rs,3,70,450 with costs. Aggrieved thereof the petitioner filed a review petition which too was dismissed on 15-7-2006, hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that technicalities cannot be permitted to stifle justice and the petitioner has been knocked out on a technicality, thus, the suit has not been adjudicated and decided on merits, counsel for the petitioner, because of professional engagements could not appear and for this reason security could not be furnished as ordered, he prayed that the order be set aside even subject to payment of costs and the suit be adjudicated and decided on merits, relied on Sh. Inayatuallah v. Mian Abbas Ahmad Khan and another (1970 SCM R 130).
4. Learned counsel for the respondent vigorously defended the impugned order, he submitted that the order, dated 18-5-2005, dismissing the application for leave to appear and defend, and decree in suit, was passed in presence of the counsel for the parties, the omission of non-furnishing of security as directed was meant only to protract and prolong the proceedings, no appeal was filed and review application in these circumstances was not competent. He relied on Murtaza Haseeb Textile Mills v. Sitara Chemical Industries (2004 SCM R 882) and Messrs Long Life Builders, Karachi v.
Syed Nisar Ahmad (PLD 1996 Karachi, 423.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order, dated 18-5-2005, was passed in his absence and as such the direction quasecurity could not be fulfilled, this amounted to being condemned unheard. The position is not supported by record, order, dated 18-5-2005, was passed in presence of the learned counsel the record so reflects, therefore, the basis for seeking indulgence is incorrect and based upon misreading of record. Leave was refused for non-compliance of order, dated 28- 4-2005, passed by the trial Court, directing the petitioner to furnish security, which was not complied with, no convincing reason for non-compliance has been made out even today. In these circumstances the order, dated 18-5-2005, is correct and in accordance with law. Reliance placed by the learned counsel on Murtaza Haseeb Textile Mills v. Sitara Chemical Industries (2004 SCM R 882) is fully applicable in these circumstances. Further the judgment and decree was not impugned through any appeal and only a review application was filed, even the review application was not diligently prosecuted and resultantly, was dismissed on 15-7-2006, for non-prosecution.
The parameters of review have been set in Order XLVII, C.P.C., they are not attracted to the present matter, and therefore, the matter warrants no interference. The precedent cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts. Resultantly, this petition warrants no interference and is thus, dismissed in limine.
Revision .