1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.---This 1st appeal has been submitted against the ex-parte decree dated 15-4- 2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge Astore. The decree was refused to set aside vide judgment dated 21-9-2006, ' passed by the learned Civil Judge Astore declaring the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. To be time-barred and without sufficient cause.
2. ' The facts of the case briefly are as such that, the present respondents filed Suit No,62/95, before the trial Court for recovery of money against the present appellant and others. The suit got maturity for final arguments after a longstanding proceedings in the trial Court and on 15-4-2005, the learned trial Court passed the ex parte decree to get rid of the suit, hence this appeal before this Court against the ex parte decree.
3. ' We heard the learned Counsel for the parties and visited through record of the case and have taken aback by going through the Order sheets maintained by the learned trial Court, particularly, our surprise reached to the climax, when we read the Order sheets dated 25-6-2002, 6-11-2002, 10- 12-2002, 5-4-2003 and 8-5-2003. The Order sheet dated 25-6-2002 reveals that, the case was referred to some arbitrators, who felt reluctant to decide the case as such the learned trial Court fixed the case for written arguments to submit on 20-8-2002, but on the appointed date the case was again fixed for arguments without demanding written arguments, then on 611-2002, the Court honourd the written arguments submitted by the parties and case was fixed for orders on 10-12- 2002 and on the appointed date the plaintiff remained absent, but sent an application for adjournment, the request was granted and case was fixed for orders on 5-4-2003, on the appointed date, the parties attended the Court, but their counsel remained absent. The Court despite announcing the order, granted time for re-arguing the case without stating any reason not to pass Order and 8-5-2003 was fixed for re-arguments, on the appointed date, the parties attended the Court, but the Counsel for the defendants remained absent from the Court and case was adjourned for 23-6-2003, with the warring to hear the one sided arguments, if the defendants or their counsel remained absent and like wise some more adjournments were granted by fixing the case for arguments and on 15-5-2004, an ex parte decree was passed against the defendants but same was restored and case was fixed to attend the Court on 20-8-2004, vide Order sheet dated 8-7-2004.
4. ' On 20-8-2004, the case was adjourned, without fixing the same for arguments or re-arguments, to 29-09-2004, on the appointed date, the plaintiff requested that the matter is being patched up by one of their relatives, as such sought adjournment and Case was adjourned for 25-11-2004. On the appointed date, the case was adjourned to 9-3-2004 for further proceedings as the defendants were not in attendance on the appointed date, the defendants again remained absent and case was adjourned for further proceedings, and following date was fixed on 15-4-2004 and on the appointed date, the impugned ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiff is passed as the defendants remained absent.
5. All the above history shows that, how carelessly the suit has been dealt by the trial Court, 1st, when the suit became matured, the case was fixed for arguments, then it was sent to arbitration and again it was fixed for arguments and written arguments were called from the parties and after submission of the written arguments by the parties, the case was fixed for final order and again, the Court took a turn without assigning any reason to fix the case for re-arguments, but passed an ex parte decree and same was set aside and again the case was fixed for further proceedings and the impugned decree was passed, as such the date on which the impugned ex parte decree is passed can not be said to be "date of hearing" although if the case was simply fixed for arguments it would be date of hearing.
6. The above circumstance of the case transpire that, the Court carelessly and without applying conscious mind has taken the case, while once the case was fixed for orders after getting the written arguments, the proper course was to give its judgment on merits and even when the case was fixed for re-arguments and the parties made lame execuses then the proper course was to give judgment on merits. Lastly when the defendants remained absent from the Court, than too, the proper course for the Court was to deliver its judgment on merits, hence the learned trial Court has erred in law patently, in this respect we followed the case law titled "Mst. Shamshad Begum alias Sharam Khatoon v. District and Sessions Judge Dadu through Presiding Officer and 4 others.
7. 1998 CLC 1128.
8. Keeping in view the above circumstance of the case, it can be said that, the learned trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with and patently erred in law by passing ex parte decree without going into merits of the case and the date on which the impugned ex parte decree has been passed can not be said to be date of hearing for passing ex parte decree without going into merits of the case, hence restoration application is within the time by applying Article 181 Limitation Act, which provides 3 years.
9. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that, the ex parte decree dated 15-04-2005 is set aside and the case is remitted back to trial Court to deliver his Judgment on merits without any inordinate delay, however the petitioner is penalized to pay Rs,10,000 cost for his non serious attended before the trial Court. 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.