MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J: Through the instant regular first appeal, the appellant, Muhammad Azad, impugns the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2009 passed by the learned Judge-in-Chambers, dismissing the appellant' s application for leave to appear and defend the suit for recovery of Rs.93,00,000/- filed under Order XXXVII C.P .C., and consequently , decreeing the suit.
2. The respondent had filed the suit for recovery of Rs.93,00,000/- along with markup against the appellant on 02.10.2006. The appellant' s application for leave to appear and defend the suit was allowed on the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.93,00,000/-. The order dated 17.12.2006, whereby conditional leave to appear and defend the suit had been granted to the appellant was assailed by him in a revision petition before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. The said revision petition was dismissed on 05.05.2008.
Since the appellant did not fulfill the cond ition on which leave to appear and defend the suit had been granted to him, his application for leave to appear and defend the suit was dismissed, and the respondent' s suit was decreed by this Court vide judgment and decree dated 09.04.2009.
3. It may be mentioned that the suit had been filed before the Court of the learned District Judge, Islamabad but it was transferred to the Islamabad High Court after its establishment through President' s Order No.7 of 2007.
4. The order sheet of this appeal shows that at some stage, the respondent had appeared but subsequently , on several dates of hearing, no appearance was tendered on his behalf. After efforts to issue summons to the respondent through publication were not successful, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.09.2021.
5. The instant appeal against the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2009 was filed on 17.11.2009. Along with the appeal, the appellant also filed an application for condonation of delay (i.e. C.M. No.666-C/2009). The grounds taken in the said application were that the appellant came to know about the judgment and decree on 30.07.2009 from the bailiff of the learned Executing Court, and that due to the dissolution of the Islamabad High Court, he was unable to obtain the certified copy of the judgment and decree in time.
6. We deem it appropriate, in the first instance, to decide the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
7. The limitation period for filing the regular first appeal against the judgment and decree is ninety days under Article 156 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, but the appellant filed the appeal on 17.11.2009, i.e. more than seven months after the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2009. He applied for the certified copy of the judgment and decree on 07.1 1.2009, and the copy was prepared on the very same day .
8. As mentioned above, the suit filed by the respondent was decreed by this Court on 09.04.2009. The appellant claims to have come to know about the judgment and decree on 30.07.2009. Since it is an admitted position that the appellant had filed an application for leave to appear and defend the suit, he had full knowledge of the suit against him. Therefore, the date on which the appellant came to know about the judgment and decree is immaterial.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to assist the Court as to when and if at all the appellant had been proceeded against ex-parte by the learned Trial Court. Even if the appellant is deemed to have been procee ded against ex-parte , his assertion that he did not know about the judgment and decree against him would not mean that the limitation period for filing an appeal would not run from the date of the judgment and decree.
10. Now, as regards the ground that the delay in filing the appeal was due to abolition of the Islamabad High Court, we do not see how this can constitute a sufficient ground for condoning the delay . Indeed, erstwhile Islamabad High Court stood dissolved by reason of the judgment dated 31.07.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but there was nothing preventing the appellan t to have timely applied for the certified copy of the judgment and decree.
It is not the appellant' s case that with the dissolution of the Islamabad High Court, the issuance of certified copies of judgments and decrees had also been stopped. Had the appellant applied in time for certified copy of the judgment and decree in question, the limitation period for filing the appeal would not have run against him until the certified copy was prepared. Since the judgment and decree was passed on 09.04.2009, the three-month limitation period within which the appellant could have filed the appeal expired on 09.07.2009 i.e. three weeks prior to the dissolution of the Islamabad High Court. During all this period, the appellant did not even bother to apply for the certified copy of the judgment and decree.
11. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the appellant has not come up with sufficient grounds for us to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, and consequently , the instant appeal is dismissed as time barred.