' Facts giving rise to this civil revision are that respondent No, 1 Muhammad Sharif, brought a suit against the petitioner, Muhammad Qasim and respondent No, 2, Muhammad Ishaq. It was initially heard by Syed Musudul Hassan, Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, before whom the parties had been entering appearance. In consequence of an administrative order, the suit was transferred to the Court of Syed Mukhtar Ali Shah, Civil Judge, Sheikhupura. Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared in the Court of Syed Mukhtar Ali Shah on 20th February, 1984. However, when the case came up before him on 7th March, 1984, nobody entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner. It was, therefore, directed by Syed Mukhtar Ali Shah that the petitioner shall be served by means of proclamation in the weekly "Kehkashan" for 7th April, 1984. As the proclamation was pot issued for 7th April, 1984, the case was adjourned to 13th May, 1984 to await the proclamation.
Subsequently, the proclamation was issued for 13th May, 1984 but nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner on that date. Syed Mukhtar Ali Shah, therefore, proceeded ex parte against the petitioner, recorded the evidence of respondent No, 1 and decreed the suit ex parte, on 24th May, 1984. On 6th June, 1984, the petitioner made an application for setting aside the ex parte decree but the same was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Petitioner went in appeal before an Additional District Judge but in vain. Hence, this civil revision.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not properly served by the transferee Court, namely, the Court of Syed Mukhtar Ali Shah, and as such the ex parte decree was not sustainable. His plea was that the petitioner did not come to know of the proclamation published in the weekly "Kehkashan" for 13th May, 1984.
3. I regret to say that Syed Mukhtar Ali Shah had fallen in error in issuing the proclamation. When learned counsel for the petitioner had entered appearance before him on 20th February, 1984, there was no need for issuing the proclamation. It was for the petitioner and his learned counsel to pursue the matter further before the learned transferee Court and if they had failed to do so, they should suffer the consequences thereof. Since the petitioner's counsel had once appeared before the learned transferee Court, I see no force in the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner was not served by the said Court before passing ex parte decree.
4. There is no merit in this civil revision. It is accordingly, dismissed in limine.