' ATIR MAHMOOD, J.---Through this appeal, appellants Allah Ditta etc. Have assailed order dated 26-1-2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Vehari whereby application for restoration of appellant's appeal, dismissed in default vide order dated 10-10-2003, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents Nos.1 to 18 Mst. Majida Begum etc. (the respondents) filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of land measuring 99-kanals and 18-marla situated in Chak No,126/WB Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari against the appellants as well as respondents Nos.19 to 23. The suit was decreed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Vehari vide judgment and decree dated 14-11-1993. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants challenged the judgment and decree dated 14-11-1993 before this Court in R.F.A. No,81/1993. In the meanwhile, the respondents dispossessed the appellants from the suit property. It has been contended in the appeal that since the appellants had no source of income at Chak No,126/WB, Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari, they went to Rawalpindi. On 17-2-2005, the appellants came to know through their counsel that the appeal vide order dated 17-4-2003 passed by this Court was transmitted to District Judge, Vehari who entrusted it to learned Additional District Judge, Vehari on 30-4-2003 where the same was dismissed in default on 10-10-2003. The appellants filed an application for restoration of the appeal on 21-2-2005 giving details of their inability to pursue the matter. Respondents Nos.1 to 18 contested the application by filing written reply. After hearing both sides, learned Additional District Judge, Vehari dismissed the application of the appellants vide order dated 26-1-2006 deeming it time barred. During the pendency of the appeal, appellants Nos.2 and 3 died whose legal heirs were not impleaded, therefore, the same have been arrayed as pro forma respondents Nos.19 to
23. The order dated 26-1-2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Vehari has been assailed in this FAO.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the learned lower appellate court while dismissing the appeal of the appellants vide order dated 10-10-2003 has travelled beyond its jurisdiction as it was reported to learned lower appellate court that the appellants were not residing at the given address rather they had shifted to somewhere else; that it was incumbent upon the lower appellate court to serve the appellants through their counsel rather than to summon the process server for his statement; that the appellants were summoned firstly vide order dated 3-7-2003 but the summonses were not issued whereafter the appellants were summoned vide order dated 18-7-2003; that the appellants filed application for restoration of the appeal as soon as they came to know about dismissal of the same. In default giving reasons in detail for their nonappearance which were not taken into consideration by the learned lower appellate court; that since Article 181 of the Limitation Act was attracted in the circumstances of the case, there was no need to file application for condonation of delay especially when the delay was fully explained in application for restoration of the appeal; that the learned lower court has failed to apply its judicious mind and the application of the appellants has been dismissed whimsically; that settled principle of law that technicalities should not come in the way of justice has altogether been ignored; that valuable rights of the appellants are involved in the case, therefore, this FAO be allowed, the impugned order be set aside and the appeal be restored by allowing application of the appellants for restoration of the same.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed this appeal and fully supported the impugned order. His main stress is on the point that the application filed by the appellants for restoration of the appeal is badly hit by limitation of time, therefore, the same was rightly dismissed. He has also argued that the appellants have failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay. He also contends that no application for condonation of delay was moved by the appellants, therefore, the delay could not be condoned. He asserts that this appeal is without any merit, as such, the same be dismissed.
5. I have heard the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with their able assistance.
6. The point for consideration before this Court is as to whether the application for restoration of appeal filed by the appellants before the lower appellate court was within time. There is no denial to the fact that initially the appeal was filed before this Court which was subsequently sent to the lower appellate court on account of pecuniary jurisdiction on 28-4-2013 and then it was entrusted to the court of Additional District Judge, Vehari vide order dated 30-4-2003. There is also no denial to the fact that the appellants were duly represented by their counsel namely Rana Muhammad Luqman, who was well aware about the proceedings. In order to reach just conclusion the contents of the application for restoration of appeal have been minutely perused. The paragraph No,5 of the application for restoration of appeal is very relevant which reads as under : {{URDU TEXT}}
7. From the bare reading of this paragraph it is evident that the counsel for the appellants was well aware about the proceedings and as on 17-2-2005 when the appellants contacted their counsel they immediately came to know that the case was transferred in the year 2003 before District Judge, Vehari, astonishingly the appellants never bothered to contact their counsel during a long span of about two years. In my opinion, knowledge of the counsel for the appellants is knowledge of the appellants and if they have not bothered to contact their counsel regarding the disposal of their appeal no concession can be extended to such an indolent litigant.
' Mere contention of learned counsel for the appellants that since the appellants have abandoned their residence and they were not aware about the pendency of appeal before the District Judge is not acceptable as it was incumbent upon the appellants to furnish their fresh address in the court.
The Rule 24 of Order VII, C.P.C. Is reproduced for ready reference:-.
"Change of address.---A party who desires to change the address for service given by it as aforesaid shall file a verified petition, and the court may direct the amendment of the record accordingly. Notice of such petition shall be given to such other parties to the suit as the Court may deem it necessary to inform, and may be either served upon the pleaders for such parties or be sent to them by registered post, as the Court thinks fit." ' and since the appeal is the continuation of the proceedings the same rule applies in the present case. The time limit for filing the application for restoration of appeal is 30 days from the date of dismissal of appeal but the appellants have not bothered to file any application for condonation of delay and the lower appellate court after hearing the parties has rightly appreciated the crux of the matter and there is nothing wrong in the impugned order which could be interfered by this Court. The application for restoration of appeal was barred by time and was rightly dismissed by the lower appellate court.
8. Resultantly, this appeal being devoid of any merits, is dismissed.