1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This order will govern C. P. S. L. A. No, 957 of 1976 and C. P. S. L. A. No, 958 of 1976, as the question of law and facts arising in them is the same and they have been disposed of by a common judgment passed by a learnid single Judge of the Lahore High Court.
2. ' The question was whether the trial Judge's order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the petitioners should be revised by the High Court?
3. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties held that sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree was not made out. He, accordingly, dismissed the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, which was earlier passed by him. The petitions for revision filed seeking the setting aside of the said order of the learned trial Court were dismissed as the learned Judge in the High Court, relying upon Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Bakhsh Singh held that such a finding of the trial Court is not revisable under the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under section 115, C. P. C.
4. ' As we are also with agreement of the dictum of the Privy Council in the aforesaid case, no ground for interfering with the finding of the High Court exists.
5. ' These petitions, therefore, fail and are dismissed hereby. IL R 11 Cal. 6 revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.