1. Briefly, the respondents/decree holder (herein after to be called as respondents) lodged a claim against the petitioner/judgment debtor to provide all the facilities published by him in the advertisement of Madni Town and for recovery of an amount of Rs. 308000/- as compensation and damages due to non providence of the facility and faulty services under section 25 of PCPA 2005.
2. In the said claim, Ahmad Zia owner of Makki Traders, the petitioner/defendant (herein after to be called as petitioner) appeared in person when the case was fixed for submission of written statement by him on 25.10.2008. However, non appeared for the petitioner on subsequent dates till 02.12.2008, when the case was decreed in favour of respondent, hence, this petition for setting aside the order on the ground that he was busy in making preparation for performance of Hajj in those days, that he has never been properly served summons/notices that hence he may be provided an opportunity of hearing.
3. The respondents have vehemently opposed the above said petition by filing their written reply.
4. Heard the arguments. Record perused.
5. The petition in hand is not sustainable in the eyes of law on the following grounds; a. The petitioner Ahmad Zia made his appearance on 25.10.2008, when he subscribed his signatures on the order sheet and his such signature tally with his signature beneath the contents of the petition in hand, therefore, he is estopped to raise the plea of his absence on the said date; b. The impugned order was made on 02.12.2008, whereas, the petition in hand has been submitted on 25.05.2009, hence, the petition has been unable to justify the period for condo nation of delay; c. After conclusion of ex-parte evidence adduced by the respondent in this court, the petitioner was delivered final notice vide No.PO/DCC/Fsd/2008/417 dated 20.11.08, through registered cover envelop to intimate him as a final resort that if he had any case to defend, he might appear on 26.11.08, in this court that otherwise no excuse shall be available to him in this regard. The address on which the said notice was delivered has not been disputed therefore, it is presumed that it had reached its destination; d. The petitioner is not in attendance even today showing lack of his interest to pursue the proceedings in this petition; e. The petitioner has submitted the petition in hand only after coercive measures were adopted by this court for procuring his attendance for payment of decreetal amount to the respondent/decree holder, showing the petitioner's malafide.
The upshot of the above whole discussion is that the petition in hand merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after its due completions.