' This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 22-12-1979 passed by the Rent Controller at Karachi in Rent Case No, 2165/78.
' The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent filed an ejectment application on the ground of default in payment of rent for the period commencing from December, 1977 to April, 1978. The above application was resisted by the present appellant. It was fixed for evidence for the present appellant on 21-11-1979, but nobody had appeared on behalf of the appellant and, therefore, her side was closed. The case was put off to 4-12-1979. Again on the latter date nobody had appeared for the appellant and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 15- 12-1979 for arguments. On the latter date the case did not proceed as the learned Rent Controller was on leave and the case was posted for arguments on 16-12-1979. On the above date the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent were heard and the case was fixed for judgment for 22-12-1979. It seems that on 19-12-1979 the appellant filed an application under Order IX, rule 9, C. P. C. Record with. Section 151, C. P. C. Stating therein that she could not appear on the date of hearing as she was seriously sick and that her Advocate by mistake noted, wrong date and that he came to know on 19-12-1979 that the case was fixed for judgment. The learned Rent Controller ordered notice for 22-12-1979. However, from the endorsement on the above application it seems that the appellant did not pay cost. Consequently, the notice of the aforesaid application was not issued to the respondent. As the case was already fixed for judgment for 22-12-1979 by the aforesaid order dated 16-12-1979, the learned Rent Controller accordingly pronounced the order under appeal on 22-12-1979. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the aforesaid present appeal.
2. In support of the above appeal Mr. Khalid Athar, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that since the appellant's application under Order IX, rule 9, C. P. C. Was pending on 22-12-1979, the learned Rent Controller was not justified in passing the order under appeal. In my view the above contention is devoid of any force inasmuch as the case was already fixed for judgment for 22-12- 1979 by an order dated 16-12-1979 after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent as observed herein above. However on 19-12-1979 the appellant filed the aforesaid application, on which notice was ordered for 22-12-1979 but no notice was issued to the respondent as admittedly the appellant did not pay the cost. In this view of the matter, the learned Rent Controller was justified in pronouncing the judgment which was already fixed for the aforesaid purpose for the above date. It may be observed that the appellant even did not apply for extension of time for payment of cost for the process. In my view, it was the duty of the appellant to prosecute her application under Order IX, r. 9, C. P. C. Diligently, which she failed. Furthermore, the order dated, 16-12-1979 fixing the case for judgment by the Rent Controller was never recalled or modified by him,, Nothing has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant on the merits of the order under appeal. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order under appeal and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, I grant 4 months time to the appellant on the condition that she shall continue to deposit rent in terms of the Rent Controller's order on or before 10th of each month. The rent for the month of April, 1981, shall be deposited by her on or before 10th May, 1981 and thereafter on or before 10th of each month. In case the appellant will commit default of the above condition, the respondent shall be entitled to file an execution application immediately on commission of such default before the expiry of the period of the above four months.