ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioners/respondent No. 3 with the averments made therein that the petitioners be restrained from issuing contract agreement for the construction of disputed road in favour of Waseem Babar, defendant/respondent No. 3 on the basis of tender dated 25.11.2003 published in the Daily Newspaper, which is illegal ex parte and without notice. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff prayed for the recovery of his dues for the construction of work of disputed road on the basis of rendition of accounts which he had done through an agreement dated 07.04.2001. Written statement was filed by the petitioners as well as respondent No. 3 (herein) controverted the allegation levelled by respondent. No. 1. Issues were framed and the parties were directed to adduce their respective evidence. After recording of evidence of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 the petitioners/defendants, including respondent No 3 absented themselves and they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 17.09.2009. The learned Trial Court after hearing ex parte arguments from the side of the plaintiff decreed the suit on 27.01.2010 in his favour. The petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 filed an appeal against the said ex parte judgment and decree dated 27.01.2010 which came up for hearing before the learned Addl. District Judge, Attock, who vide his judgment and decree dated 23.05.2012 same on the basis of limitation, hence this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are against law and facts; that both the Courts below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them and exercised the same which was not vested in them; that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are the result of misreading and non- reading of evidence/documents available on the file and as such both the judgments are nullity in the eyes of law and are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record annexed with this petition.
5. The plaintiff Muhammad Anwar himself appeared as PW-1 and fully supported his version as contained in the plaint. He has also placed on record copy of work order for construction of road as Exh.P.1, original receipts for depositing the amount in the bank dated 15.05.2003 and 18.09.2003 as Exh.P.2, Exh.P.3, copy of cheque Exh.PA and photocopy of proclamation published in the newspaper as Mark A/P. Which shows that the contract was given to the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for the work assigned to him by the petitioners but the amount. Of work done was not given to him. His claim was supported by PW2 and PW-3 respectively. On the other hand, petitioners/defendants were proceeded against ex parte as after contesting the claim of respondent No. 1, he preferred to abandon the proceedings once joined before the Trial Court. The petitioners flied hopelessly time- barred appeal on 26.10.2010 and have failed to explain the sufficient cause of delay for condoning the said period. The petitioners have failed to make out a case for interference in the impugned judgments, as he is required to explain each and every day in filing the appeal before the Appellate Court.
6. For what has been discussed above, the judgments and decrees passed by the first Appellate Court as well as the Court of learned Civil Judge are neither illegal, arbitrary nor fanciful therefore, this Court upholds the same. Resultantly, this civil revision having no force is dismissed in limine.
Civil revision .