Through this civil revision, the petitioner has called into question the wires of order dated 12.11.2018, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang has proceeded to recall the order granting leave to the petitioner and to defend the suit, instituted by the respondent under Order )(XXVII, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the application of the petitioner for leave to appear and defend the suit was accepted on 29.10.2018 and the petitioner was directed to submit surety bonds within fifteen days equivalent to the value/amount in disputed cheques; submits that through the impugned order the learned Court below has recalled the order granting leave to appear and defend the suit without affording ample opportunity to the petitioner to submit fresh surety bonds because the petitioner is not resident of Jhang and belongs to District Multan; thus, the impugned order is not tenable under the law and liable to be set aside by allowing the civil revision in hand as the learned trial Court has failed to exercised vested jurisdiction as per mandate of law and the petitioner may be granted suf ficient time to furnish surety bonds.
3. On the contrary , learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and has prayed for dismissal of the civil revision in hand.
4. Heard.
5. Admittedly application of the petitioner for leave to appear and defend the suit was allowed when the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent deposed his no objection on its acceptance subject to submission of local surety bond and the learned trial Court passed the order dated 29.10.2018 but on the next date, the learned trial Court, without keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is not resident of District Jhang, proceeded to recall the said order, which was passed after no objection of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The learned trial Court ought to have granted sufficient opportunity to the petitioner but instead the learned trial Court despite the fact that on 29.10.2018 granted 15 days for submission of fresh surety bond to the petitioner proceeded to pass the impugned penal order on 12.11.2018, prior to expiry of time granted to the petitioner for the said purpose. Thus, keeping in view the above said facts and principle of audi alteram partem, the impugned order cannot be allowed to hold field; resultantly, the revision petition in hand is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is afforded with opportunity to submit fresh surety bonds from within the limits of District Jhang District & Tehsils) equivalent to the value/amount in disputed cheque within 15 days from today . No order as to costs.