MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- In a suit filed on 13-7-1998 by the respondent against the appellant for recovery of Rs,75,000 under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. On the basis of a pro note, he put in appearance and applied for grant of leave to defend the suit. This application was allowed by the learned trial Court on 18-11-1998 subject to deposit of the suit amount. This order was challenged in Civil Revision No.2041 of 1998, which was disposed of with the direction that the amount to be deposited be invested in some profit bearing scheme. The direction was given to deposit the amount before 11- 2-1999. Thereafter, the case was taken up on 12-2-1999 and after observing that the amount has not been deposited, the leave was withdrawn and the suit was decreed by a learned Additional District Judge, Jhang.
2. This R.F.A. Came up on 29-6-1999. It was admitted to hearing and a stay order was issued subject to deposit of Rs,75,000 with the Deputy Registrar of this Court which was to be invested in a profit bearing scheme. This.Has since been deposited and there is a note on the margin of. The said order. The learned counsel has also shown me a receipt issued by the office for the said deposit.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that his client had made efforts to arrange the said amount. A brother-in-law working in Saudi Arabia sent him a Bank Draft in the sum of Rs,65,267 on 23-1-1999 which was received late and was deposited with a Bank on 11-2-1999. He filed an application explaining the said delay but the application was not entertained. I find that the respondent is represented by Mr. Muhammad Ramzan, Advocate, whose power of attorney is on record and whose name has been printed in the cause list. I find that the said counsel had never put in appearance for a period of last eight years, No one is present today for the respondent despite calls. He is accordingly proceeded against ex parte.
4. I have examined the records of the learned trial Court. Leave was granted subject to deposit. The order was modified by this Court and ultimately the amount has been deposited and invested in a profit bearing scheme vide order, dated 29-6-1999 passed by this Court in this R.F.A. The matter is pending ever since. To my mind, the condition stands sufficiently complied with. The said amount to remain deposited and invested as ordered by this Court and to be disbursed by the office/ Deputy Registrar of this Court in accordance with the decision in the pending suit. The R.F.A.
Accordingly is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree, dated 12-2-1999 of learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, is set aside. The result would be that the suit filed by the respondent shall be deemed to be pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Jhang, to whom the records along with a copy of this judgment shall be remitted. The learned District Judge may proceed with the suit himself or entrust it to a learned Additional District Judge who shall summon the parties and proceed further in the matter to decide the suit in accordance with law. No orders as to costs.