The facts may be briefly stated The respondents had filed a suit against the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 36,000 for the use and occupation of the house in dispute. The respondents obtained an ex parte decree on 22nd December, 1976 but the execution application was filed on 13th February, 1978. According to the petitioner he acquired the knowledge of the exparte decree on 18th March, 1978 when the process in the execution application had been issued. The petitioner made an application under Order IX, rule 13 read with section 151, C. P. C. On 12th April, 1978 for setting aside the exparte decree. In this application without inquiring about the sufficient cause for the petitioner's non-appearance in the proceedings, the petitioner was called upon to furnish bank guarantee upto 13th May, 1978 for the decretal amount. The trial Court on the request of the petitioner, in the first instance, extended time upto 29th Ma, 1978 but the petitioner did not comply with the directions with the- result that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed on 29th May, 1978. The petitioner applied for review of the order which was also dismissed on 19th January, 1979. The petitioner filed an appeal in which he challenged the order of furnishing the bank-guarantee before inquiring about the sufficiency of the cause and also the order passed on review. The learned Additional District Judge, Lahore dismissed the appeal on 3rd July, 1979 which order has been challenged in the present revision. The learned Additional District Judge observed that the order passed in review was not appealable and the appeal filed against the order of dismissal of the application under Order IX, rule 13, C.P.C. Had become barred by time.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the original order of directing the petitioner to furnish the bank-guarantee without inquiring into the sufficiency of the cause was illegal and reliance has been placed on Raza Ansari v. Maula Bakhsh (PLD 1979 Kar. 568) It was also argued that even if the appeal against the order passed on review was not competent the time spent in prosecuting the review application could be condoned under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act and even the time spent in the disposal of the application under Order IX, rule 13, C.P.C. In support of this proposition reliance has been placed on Ghulam Hussain v. Kanwar Ashiq Ali Khan (PLD 1990 SC 198) and Shah Muhammad v. Ghulam etc. (3).
3. It appears that the case shall have to be remanded back to the Additional District Judge, Lahore for fresh decision as the question of limitation has not been considered keeping in view the fact that the time spent in prosecuting a review application could be reckoned for condonation of delay in filing the appeal in view of the judgments referred to above. The counsel for the petitioner has made C M No. 6518/C of 1980 under section 14 of the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the lower appellate Court but the application cannot be entertained in this Court as the matter relates to the delay in the filing of the appeal. In case the petitioner had bona fidely prosecuted the remedy in filing the review application the period can be condoned for which the petitioner shall make an application before the lower appellate Court and the same shall be decided in accordance with law. After deciding the question of limitation the lower appellate Court shall decide the question involved on merits. C. M. 6518/C/80 is hereby dismissed with this observation. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued the. Merits of the case which could not be decided in this revision as the lower appellate Court has not adverted to the main questions involved in the case.
This revision is accepted with no order as to costs.