' SARDAR SHAUKAT HAYAT, J.---Impugned herein is the order of learned Additional District Judge, Peshawar dated 29-1-2010 whereby dismissed the appeal filed by petitioners and maintained the order dated 10-7-2009 of learned Civil Judge, Peshawar.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit against defendants/petitioners for recovery of Rs,3,07,255 to the effect that defendants remained the tenants of plaintiffs since, 1978 in the building owned by the plaintiffs. That due to default in rent by the defendants ejectment order through court was passed against the defendants. On taking legal possession of the premises in question, it was found that the defendants caused a lot of damage to the same. There were also arrears of rent due to the defendants from April, 1998 up to 2001 as per schedule annexed with the plaint. Plaintiffs prayed for recovery of Rs,3,07,255 as arrears of rent as well as damages to the rented premises.
3. Defendants were put on notice, wherein, they denied the claim of plaintiffs. On divergent pleadings, issues were framed. On 11-10-2006, defendants were proceeded ex parte, however, the order was set aside on no objection by the plaintiffs. On 23-1-2007, name of defendant No,1 was changed. Plaintiffs examined their witnesses, who were cross-examined by the defendants.
Defendants were asked to examine their witnesses but they delayed the matter for considerable time. Finally, the trial Court issued notices for 10-11-2007, 17-1-2008 and on 4-3-2008. On 23-4-2008, the evidence of defendants was struck off under Order XVII (3), C.P.C. The case was fixed for arguments. Later on, defendants were proceeded ex parte on 25-7-2008 and ex parte decree was passed against the defendants vide judgment and decree dated 6-11-2008 by learned Civil Judge, Peshawar. The defendants moved an application for setting aside ex parte decree on 28-5-2009, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 10-7-2009 as time barred. Similarly, the request of defendant to review the order dated 23-4-2009 whereby defendants were proceeded ex parte was also turned down by the learned trial Court.
4. Defendants filed an appeal against the order dated 10-7-2009 and order dated 23-4-2009 before the appellate court, which was also dismissed due to conduct of the defendants in the trial Court but also that the appeal filed before the appellate court is time barred by 7 days without any application for condonation of delay, hence the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that the ex parte judgment and decree of the trial Court is not in accordance with the prescribed law on the subject. Though the issue-wise findings have been given by the trial Court but without discussing the evidence produced by the plaintiffs and merits of the case. That the plaintiffs came to know about the ex parte decree against them when execution proceedings were initiated against them. He further argued that the appellate court has also decided the appeal on merits but has dismissed it being time barred.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents supported the judgments of the learned courts below.
' Arguments heard and available record perused.
7. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the suit was filed against the petitioners/defendants on 8-10-2004. The plaintiffs adduced their evidence and within year the case remained adjourned on different dates for cross-examination of plaintiffs witnesses on one pretext or the other by the petitioneRs,
8. On 11-10-2006, petitioners absented themselves and were proceeded ex parte, however, on their application vide order dated 23-1-2007 the ex parte proceedings against them were set aside.
Case was fixed for evidence of the defendants but due to non-production of their evidence, petitioners/defendants were given notice under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. By the trial Court on 20-6- 2007. On 10-7-2007, due to absence of defendants evidence, cost of Rs,300 was imposed upon them. Again for the same reason on 8-9-2007, cost of Rs,300 with a final chance for production of evidence was imposed upon the defendants. On 10-10-2007, again the evidence of defendants was absent. On 3-12-2007, the defendants applied the trial Court to record the statement of the witnesses through commission, which application, being delaying the matter, was dismissed and last chance for producing evidence was given along with notice under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. To the defendants. On 4-3-2008, again petitioners/defendants were absent and again notice for striking of evidence was given. On 23-4-2008, defendants were absent, eventually the right of the petitioners was struck off by the trial Court. On 26-4-2008, the counsel for plaintiffs/ respondents was present and ex parte arguments were heard by the learned trial Court. On 29-4-2008 both the counsel were present and counsel for petitioners/ defendants requested for time to argue the case. On 25-7-2008, again the defendants were absent. They were proceeded ex parte and finally vide judgment dated 6-11-2008, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs/respondents. During execution proceedings, the petitioners moved an application before the trial Court on 28-5-2009 for setting aside the ex parte decree. However, it was dismissed by the trial Court. The petitioners filed appeal before the appellate forum, which was also time barred by 7 days. The learned appellate court dismissed the appeal of petitioneRs,
9. The conduct of the petitioners clearly shows that during the entire proceedings, they remained quite negligent in defending their case. The plaintiffs/respondents had completed their entire evidence within one year from the filing of the suit and then the case lingered on due to the absence of the petitioners by not complying with the orders of the court for non producing their evidence in spite of given number of chances as well as imposition of cost and notices under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. The petitioners did not bother about the directions of the court and by not producing their evidence as well as absenting themselves, they showed that they have no respect for the courts and consider themselves above the law. Not only this but appeal filed by petitioners before the appellate forum was also time barred by 7 days and there was no application for condonation of delay. Reliance is placed on 1996 SCM R 596 (Muhammad Saleem and others v.
Mukhtar Ahmad), 2006 SCM R 1458 (Ghulam Rasool and others v. Ahmad Yar and others) and 2006 SCM 631 (Shahid Parvez v. Muhammad Ahmad Amin).
' In the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the petitioners do not deserve any leniency for grant of relief, thus the instant revision petition being devoid of legal merits is dismissed with no order as to costs. C.M.517 of 2010 having become redundant also stands disposed of.