ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: --A suit for rendition of accounts was filed by the petitioner against the respondents in the year 1973. The grievance of the petitioner is that the proceedings have delayed on account of the conduct of the respondent. The suit was dismissed for default on 1-12- 1981. Thereafter, it was restored and then on 31-10-1983 none of the parties was present and the suit was dismissed in default. The petitioner applied for its restoration and the suit was restored on 21- 4-1984. According to the learned counsel, after the restoration of the suit, notices were issued to the respondents but despite the fact the respondents were earlier represented by their counsel, they did not accept the said notices. After the restoration of the suit, finding it difficult to serve the respondents in the ordinary course, the trial Court decided to effect the substituted service on the respondents and consequently a notice was published in the daily Nawa-i-Waqt on 8-5-1984. The respondents did not appear and ex parte proceedings were ordered against them and ultimately an ex parte preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court on 19-10-1984. A Local Commissioner was appointed after passing of the preliminary decree. In the aforesaid proceedings, Mr. A.H. Mirza, Advocate, appeared before the Local Commissioner on 31-12-1985 and sought adjournment. The Local Commissioner finalised the report on 27-4-1984. The respondents submitted an application for setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree. It was stated by the respondents that they had no knowledge of the ex parte proceedings and they came to know of the passing of the decree on 20- 4-1986 and telephonic instructions were given from Australia on 20-4-1986. Their case was that they had not been served after the restoration of the suit. The trial Court dismissed the application.
The respondents filed an appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Islamabad.
A Civil Revision Petition before the High Court was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by a learned single Judge on 22-1-1990. Hence the present petition.
2. The High Court while dismissing the petition, in para 6 of the impugned judgment observed as hereunder:-- "The fact remains that the respondents were living abroad and that was the reason why repeated attempts were made to serve them through various modes including proclamation in a newspaper. It is true that they were represented by a counsel at Karachi before a Local Commissioner on the 31st of December, 1985, and that they would be construed to have had acquired knowledge of the proceedings at least as from that date, but there: was nothing on the record to show if the counsel, who half-heartedly represented them only by filing a memo, had further instructed them to make themselves available at the hearing. It is again true that a counsel's remissness would be no ground to extend the time as held in Bashir Ahmad v.
Government of the Punjab, etc. 1985 SCMR 33, but the peculiar circumstance of the respondents living abroad was by itself a great factor justifying some leniency in their favour. The lower appellate Court was persuaded by this fact, among others, and condoned the delay. It also thought that a memo. Of appearance was not a valid authority to represent the respondents and hence no knowledge of the pendency of the suit could be attributed to them on its strength."
3. Admittedly, the respondents were residing abroad and they had not been served in the ordinary course. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Mr. A.H. Mirza, Advocate, had appeared before the Local Commissioner, therefore, the respondents had the knowledge of the proceedings. But there is nothing on record to suggest that Mr. Mirza had also been authorised to appear in Court on behalf of the respondents. The Additional District Judge and the learned High Court have taken into consideration the facts of the case. It cannot be said that the daily Nawa-a- Waqt was also circulated in the foreign country where the respondents resided. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. No point of law is involved in this petition.
The petition has no force and the same is dismissed.