1. ' HAZIQUL KHAIRI, J.--By this appeal under section 3 of LRO 1972 the appellant has challenged the order dated 7-11-1989 of a learned Single Judge refusing to set aside the decree dated 29-9-1986 passed in Suit No, 437 of 1985. On or about 25-7-1985, the appellant filed the said suit under Order 37 rule 2 C.P.C. Praying for a decree for Rs,6,00,000. Alternatively the respondent prayed for a decree under Order 34 C.P.C. Against the respondent. In the said suit the respondent filed an application under Order 37 rule 3 C.P.C. Seeking permission to appear and defend the suit. Leave was granted to the appellant upon furnishing security. Since the appellant had failed to furnish security the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 29-9-1986. Thereafter on or about 6-3-1988, the respondent filed an Execution Application No, 23 of 1987 against the appellant.
2. ' Some time after filing of the said Execution Application the appellant filed an application under section 12(2) C.P.C. For setting aside the decree passed in the said Suit No, 437 of 1985 on the ground that the money advanced to the appellant belongs to one Amanullah Khan and not to the respondent. Reference was also made by the appellant to a letter written by him to Dawoodi Bohra Jammat Faiz-e-Hakimi, Karachi, to find out how the respondent was claiming interest on a loan in the face of a mandatory injunction issued against it by the revered Head of Jammat, His Holiness Syedna Muhammad Burhanuddin.
3. The contentions raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge of this Court were considered and rightly rejected by him. It may, however, be mentioned here that upon the failure of the appellant to furnish security, a decree was passed against him but he took no steps either for extension of time to furnish security or for setting aside the decree as provided under Order 37 rule 4 C.P.C. As under:-- "4. Power to set aside decree.---After decree the Court may, under special circumstances, set aside the decree, and if necessary stay or set aside execution, and may give leave to the defendant to appear to the summons and to defend the suit, if it seems reasonable to the Court so to do, and on such terms as the Court thinks fit."
4. ' It appears to us extremely doubtful if the provisions of section 12(2), C.P.C. Are made available to the appellant whose defence was struck off upon non-compliance of Court's order and who has also failed to apply for setting aside the decree as provided under Order 37 Rule 4 C.P.C. The appellant cannot be allowed to delay or defeat a decree passed against him by invoking section 12(2) C.P.C. In the face of mandatory provisions of Order XXXVII C.P.C. So as to render the later nugatory and redundant. We will, however, refrain from expressing our views as to the maintainability of the appeal itself under section 3 of LRO 1972 which according to the learned counsel for the respondent does not lie in view of express provisions as to appeals under section 12(1) of the Banking (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.