' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 7-6-2006, the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,030 under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. According to the plaint, the respondent borrowed the said amount and promised to repay the same. He executed a pro note. The amount was not paid on demand and a suit was filed. On 27-6-2006, the respondent filed an application for leave to defend the suit. In the very first line of the application it was stated that he has received notice in the suit on 14-6-2006 through his father. It was then stated that the application is being filed within the stipulated period.
It was further stated that he had not executed any pro note. .Thee petitioner filed written reply stating that the application is barred by time and prayed for its dismissal. Learned ADJ., Lahore allowed the said application on 3-10-2006 and granted leave to defend the suit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. The application on the face of it was barred by time and even a prayer was not made for condonation of delay while the learned Additional. District Judge has stated totally incorrect facts in his impugned order.
' Learned counsel for the respondent has tried to support the impugned order.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records appended with the case. Annex. C is a certified copy of the notice that was issued in the prescribed form to the respondent for 27-6-2006.. The report of the Process Server is that the father of the respondent has met him on 13-6-2006 and he has delivered a notice and the copy of the plaint to him. As noted by me above, it is in the application itself (Annex.D) that the respondent received notice on 14-6-2006. There is no dispute that the application was filed on 27-6-2006 beyond time period of 10 days prescribed by law and as also intimated to the respondent. In absence of any cause shown for the delay in filing of the application the same was bound to be dismissed by the learned trial Court under section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908. It is indeed shocking that notwithstanding the said fact glaring on the face of the record, learned Additional District Judge has observed in his order that it has revealed upon him that service was effected upon the respondent on. 24-6-2006 and the application filed on 27- 6-2006 is within time. This observation is against the very contents of the application allowed by the learned A.D.J. And is wholly without jurisdiction.
4. Civil Revision accordingly is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is accordingly decreed in the sum of Rs.10,030 with costs throughout. Counsel fee is fixed at Rs.2,000. Office to prepare the decree sheet accordingly.