' MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---This is a writ petition, praying for issuance of writ by setting aside impugned order/judgment dated 11-06-2014 of the District Judge Ghizer that he passed in Civil Revision No,06/2013. Through the impugned order, the learned District Judge Ghizer set aside order dated 12-12-2012 of the learned Civil Judge Gupis/Yasin that the said learned Civil Judge passed in Civil Misc. No,43/2012. Through order sheet dated 25-02-2014, we have expunged name of respondent No,3 (District Judge Ghizer), therefore, hereunder, respondents mean rest of the two respondents of the petition.
2. Respondents/plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No,28/2004 in the trial court entailing to ex-parte decree dated 29-05-2012, in the said suit. Petitioners/defendants filed Civil Misc. No, 43/2012 for getting the ex parte decree set aside and through his order dated 12-12-2012, on the said petition (Civil Misc.
No,43/2012), the learned trial court set aside the ex-parte decree. Feeling aggrieved from the same, respondents/ plaintiffs filed Civil Revision No,06/2013 and the same was allowed through impugned order. Petitioners filed this petition challenging the impugned order.
3. We have heard learned counsel for parties at considerable length and have gone through the material available on file. We have thoughtfully considered arguments advanced by the learned counsel for parties. From ex-facie perusal of pleadings of parties, it is abundantly clear that respondents/plaintiffs have prayed for their shari share in the suit property. It is also not disputed that the trial proceedings of the suit have almost been completed. A very important aspect of the case is that suit property is in possession of the petitioners/defendants and we have painfully noted that petitioners/defendants are intentionally using delaying tactics just to prolong their possession on the suit property. To substantiate this argument, the learned counsel for respondents submitted that the application under O.IX, Rule 13 (Civil Misc. No,43/2011) was filed after about 5 months of the decree dated 29-0372012. Moreover, we have gone through the order sheets from 03-03-2010 onwards which also shows the attitude of the petitioners that they have practised as delaying tactic. The arguments on the suit were adjourned on 13-05-2010 on request of counsel for petitioners/defendants. Petitioners/defendants availed at least five adjournments, from 13-05- 2010 to 08-06-2011, just for arguments.
4. Yet another aspect of the case is that the petition (Civil Misc. No,43/2012) was filed after lapse of period of limitation. Petitioners/ defendants have filed petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. On 15- 08-2012, i,e,, about 5 months after the judgment/decree dated 29-03-2012 was passed. In this connection, order sheets dated 08-12-2011 and 23-02-2012, passed in the civil suit, are worth perusal. On 08-12-2011, learned counsel for petitioners/defendants remained absent and the learned trial court adjourned the case for arguments for 23-02-2012. On 23-02-2012, petitioners/defendants absented themselves and the learned trial court adjourned the case to 15- 03-2012 for ex parte arguments. On 23-02-2012, learned trial court also took ex parte proceedings against the petitioners/defendants. Order sheet dated 15-03-2012 is very important, wherein, learned trial court has written his note showing the conduct of counsel for petitioners/defendants.
We know that presumption of correctness is attached to the order sheets of the court and we cannot ignore the noting of the trial court that he has done while writing order sheet dated 15-03- 2012. For ready reference, we reproduce the said order sheet hereunder:- "Plaintiff along with counsel present. Defendants proceeded ex parte on previous date due to their absence despite of giving many notices to them. Today was fixed for ex parte final arguments of plaintiff, meanwhile counsel for defendants was present outside of court. He was given chance to argue on the part of defendants but he did not appear for the reason known him. Therefore final arguments of counsel for plaintiffs heard. Put up on 29/03/2012 for order."
' The learned trial court heard ex parte arguments on 15-03-2012 and then adjourned the case for orders to 29-03-2012. Petitioners/defendants or their counsel did not appear in the trial court on any of the above dates of hearings except on 29-03-2012 when the counsel for petitioners was asked by the trial court for advancing arguments but denied to advance arguments in spite of directions of the trial court, which in our opinion is sufficient manifestation of mala fide conduct of the petitioners/ defendants. In this connection, we have gone through the petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C., particularly, paras Nos.1 and 2 of the same, wherein, petitioners have clearly averred that they or their counsel had no knowledge of the dates of hearing dated 23-02-2012 and 29-03- 2012. In the above circumstances of the case we had to accept the above referred order sheet correct or otherwise accept the averments of the petition of Civil Misc. No,43/2012 correct. We accept the contents of order sheets dated 23-02-2012, 15-03-2012 and 29-03-2012 of the learned trial court as correct. We hold that the petition (C.M. No,43/ 2012) was time barred and was filed with mala fide intention, therefore, was correctly dismissed by the learned first appellate court.
5. Keeping in view all the above described circumstances, we find no defect in the impugned order, inviting our interference through this writ petition. We, therefore, dismiss this petition. . This file be consigned to record.