M ALIK INAYAT-UR-RAHM AN, J. The instant Civil Revision under section 115, C.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners above against the judgment/order dated 17-11-2020, passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class No. III Gilgit, in Civil Misc. No.70/2019; whereby, application of petitioners filed under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court with costs.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant revision petition as disclosed in the petition are that present respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit in the court of Civil Judge No.III Gilgit against the present petitioners/defendants for recovery of Rs.600,000/- with interest as per schedule of Karakoram Cooperative Bank Limited (KCBL) till payment of amount on the grounds set out in the plaint vide sale deed dated 13-07-2012. Admittedly, that the defendants have paid Rs.50,000/- on the spot and thereafter denied to pay the remaining amount of Rs.600,000/- despite demand; hence, suit was filed on 07-12-2013 against the defendants.
3. The defendants joined the proceedings but remained absent after filing of their written statement, therefore, the learned Trial Court passed an ex-parte decree against the defendants on 02-06-2016 which was later on set aside and the main suit was restored vide order dated 16-10- 2017 in grant of the application filed by the defendants under Order IX, Rule 13 read with section 151, C.P.C. Thereafter, defendants had been appearing for four successive dates and then again remained absent and the defendants were again proceeded ex-parte on 22-10-2018. The learned Trial Court framed six issues including issue of relief and, after receiving evidence of plaintiff and hearing ex-parte arguments, has decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for vide judgment/decree dated 22-04-2019.
4. Feeling aggrieved from this subsequent ex-parte impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the defendants again filed Civil Misc. No.70/2019, under Order IX, Rule 13 read with section 151, C.P.C. before the learned Trial Court on 21-11-2019 for setting aside of the ex-parte decree dated 22-04-2019, after a lapse of about seven months. The learned Trial Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the application vide judgment/ order dated 17-11-2020 being meritless and time barred and has also imposed costs of Rs.10,000/- on the defendants hence the instant Civil Revision petition.
5. Vide C.M. No.222/2021, one namely Ghulam Abbas s/o Mirbaz Khan is also added as party in the array of petitioners.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners had entered into an agreement with the respondents for payment of Rs.600,000/- in consideration of hotel goods/utensil etc., but later on the respondent had returned the hotel goods etc to the owner of the hotel/Guest House, i.e., the added petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the present respondent had got decree in absence of present petitioners and then filed Execution Petition and non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioners and petitioners/judgment-debtors were sent to Civil Prison for a period of six months. The learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for setting aside order of the learned Trial Court dated 17-11- 2020 passed in Civil Misc. No.70/2019 and order dated 22-04-2019 passed in Civil Suit No. 73/2018 by giving permission to petitioners to defend the suit filed against them. He has further prayed for setting aside the committal order dated 12-12-2020 passed by the learned Trial Court.
7. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and defended, the impugned order and ex-parte judgment/decree passed by the learned Trial Court and contended that the petitioners were willfully not appearing before the learned Trial Court just to prolong the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court and the defendants were proceeded ex-parte on two different occasions for their willful and intentional absence and present petitioners are unable to prove any sufficient cause for their absence, therefore, the instant revision petition may be dismissed.
8. We have heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.
9. The contention of the newly added petitioner that the goods in suit were given by the plaintiff to him in lieu of the outstanding rents holds no legal force as there is no any admissible documentary evidence made available on file to allow another chance to the petitioners on this score in kind of setting aside the ex-parte decree.
10. Perusal of record also that the present petitioners remained absent intentionally after filing of their written statement and did not pursue the suit proceedings which lead the learned Trial Court to pass an ex parte decree against the present petitioners on 02-06-2016, but on filing of application under Order. IX, Rule 13 read With section 151, C.P.C. by the present petitioners, the learned Trial Court restored the main suit vide order dated 16-10-2017. Thereafter, the present petitioners had been appearing for four successive dates and then against opted to remain absent without any plausible information to the learned Trial Court hence the defendants were again proceeded ex-parte on 22-10-2018. The learned Trial Court thereafter received' ex-parte evidence and passed ex-parte judgment/decree dated 22-04-2019 in favour of the present respondent as prayed for. After lapse of about seven months, the present petitioners when held in execution once again filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13 read with section 151, C.P.C. before the learned Trial Court for setting aside the ex-parte decree of the learned Trial Court which application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 17-11-2020 finding the same meritless and time barred and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the present petitioners.
11. Since the present petitioners had failed to avail the opportunity allowed to them by the learned Trial Court restoring the suit and had again failed to furnish any just and sufficient cause for their subsequent absence and unexplained delay in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. which may have led the Trial Court to set aside the ex-parte decree in favour of the petitioners therefore the grounds of this revision are not established.
12. For the above mentioned circumstances of the case, we have come to the conclusion that the instant petition lacks merits which is hereby ordered as dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File.