ALI BRIG, J.---This civil first appeal is directed against the impugned judgment/decree dated 04.05-2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2 Gilgit whereby , the learned trial Court has dismissed an application filed by the appellant under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P .C. for setting aside ex-pate decree.
2. Succinctly facts necessary for disposal of the instant civil first appeal are that the present respondents/plaintif fs (herein after called respondents) instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 19,90000/-against the present appellant/defendant (herein after called appellant) in the trial Court, asserting therein that the appellant has purchased Cattles from the respondents in consideration of Rs. 19,90000/- and the appellant gave a cheque bearing No.046692521 amounting to Rs. 250,000/-to the respondent No. 1 anothe r cheque bearing No. 46692520 amounting to Rs. 12,40000/- to the respondent No. 2 on 01-05-2015. Moreover , an agreement between the parties was also executed on 18-10-2018 in respect of payment of Rs. 50,000/-.
3. After institution of the said suit the appellant remained absent despite 'of service of summons issued on 15.03.2016, hence the appellant was proceeded ex-parte on 14-04-2016.
4. On conclusion of trial the learned trial Court after hearing arguments on behalf of respondents has passed ex parte decree in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and against the appellant to the extent of Rs. 14,90000/- vide judgment/ decree dated 28-04-2016.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/decree dated 28-04-2016 passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant had filed an " application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside of ex-parte judgment/decree dated 28-04-2016.
6. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties has dismissed the aforesaid application of the appellant vide the impugned judgment/decree 04-05-2019. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment/ decree of trial Court, the appellant has preferred the instant civil 1st appeal in this Court.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant contended that the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law and facts of record of the case as such the impugned judgment/decree passed by learned trial Court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the application filed by the appellant under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. before the trial Court was within time, but the learned trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application of the appellant holding that the said application has been filed after lapse of 19 months of the passing of judgment/decree dated 28-04-2016 and is time barred, whereas the application filed by the appellant is well within the time as the matter was not fixed for arguments rather it was fixed for attendance of appellant, therefore, residuary Act 181 applies to the case of the appellant, which provides the period of limitation as 3 years from accrual of the right of appeal, therefore, by accepting this civil first appeal the impugned judgment/decree passed by the trial Court may be set aside.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant by contending that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment/decree according to law as the petition filed unde r Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. by the appellant was hopelessly time bard as Article 164 Limitation Act-1908 provides 30 days limitation for filing application for setting aside ex-parte decree from the date of knowledge of said ex-parte decree but the appellant has appeared in execution petition firstly on 07-09-2017 and had been appearing before the Court in connection with execution proceedings till 15-05-2018, but the appellant did not bother to file application under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. within time for setting aside ex-parte decree passed against him.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.
10. Perusal of record reveals that summon was served on the appellant on 15-03 -2016 but the appellant did not turn up, therefore, the appellant was proceeded ex-parte on 14-04-2016 and the learned trial Court recorded evidence of the respondents. After recording of evidence of respondents the learned trial Court has passed ex- parte decree vide judgment/decree dated 28-04-2016. The respondents filed execution petition in the trial/executing Court on 06-05-2017 and the present appellant was summoned. The appellant appeared before the learned trial/executing Court on 07-09-2017, filed objections on 17-04-2018 and his objections were turned down by the learned trial/executing Court vide order sheet dated 15-05-2018. The appellant has been appearing in the trial/executing Court from 07-09-2017 to 15-05-2018. But he has filed the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside of the ex-parte decree dated 28.04.2016 on 24-04-2019 after lapse of more than 1-1/2 years of the knowledge of ex-parte decree dated 28-04-2016. Under Article 169 Limitation Act time for filing of petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. will begin run from the knowledge of such ex-parte decree. The appellant must apply to set aside ex-parte decree within 30 days of the date of the decree or knowledge of ex-parte decree as provided under Article 164 of Limitation, whereas the appellant has filed the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. after lapse of more than 19 months of the knowledge of ex-pate decree. Even the appellant has not bothered to file an application for condonation of delay in filing of said application.
11. Moreover , the learned trial Court has passed the decree on merit after recording of oral and documentary evidence of the present respondents.
12. For the foregoing reasons and circumstances we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court has not committed any material irregularity or illegality while passing the impugned judgm ent/decree rather the trial Court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it and has rightly dismissed the application of the appellant filed under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. Resultantly the Civil 1st Appeal being without any merits is dismissed with no order as to costs. File.