' SALMAN HAMID, J.---On the last date of hearing (20-12-2011), it was observed that though respondent No,1 was served inasmuch as he refused to accept the service of the bailiff and that court notice was also pasted on the available address of respondent No,1, by way of abdundant caution again notice was ordered to him together with pasting thereof on the available address of the respondent No,
1. Bailiff report shows that notice was pasted on the available address of the respondent No,
1. Again the respondent No,1 refused service of court notice. Under the circumstances and what has been mentioned above service on respondent No,1 is held good.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner says that despite the fact that the appeal before the District fudge, Karachi Central was time barred per Rule 22(1) of the West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965 same was entertained and Impugned Order dated 27-4-2011 was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights was preferred by respondent No,1 which was dismissed by III-Family Judge, Karachi Central when it came to the conclusion that respondent No, 1 never married the petitioner and that he also failed to produce any Nikahnama to authenticate such a claim, however, the IV-ADJ, Karachi Central without appreciating the above fact entertained the appeal though it was time barred against which present petition has been filed.
' I have looked into the Impugned Order and find that the learned IV-ADJ, Karachi Central has concluded limitation period by erroneously assuming that the decree was prepared on 26-2-2011 and not on 11-112010 as against the fact that the certified copy of judgment and decree show that such were prepared on 11-11-2010. The calculation made by learned IV-ADJ, Karachi, Central looking at certified copy of the judgment and decree on the face of it was incorrect and held his decision on such miscalculation and entertaining a time barred appeal is not sustainable in law inasmuch as it is an error both on facts and law and needs to be curtailed.
' In the circumstances and fact that despite service respondent No,1 has failed to appear and argue the case and defend his interest, this petition is allowed and the order passed by the IV-ADJ, Karachi Central is hereby set aside with the result that the Family Appeal No,125 of 2010 preferred by respondent No,1 before IV-AJD, Karachi, Central is hereby dismissed.
Petition disposed of accordingly.