' On 18-7-1979, appellants applied under Rule 13 of Order IX, C.P.C. To have an ex parte decree dated .30-6-1979 for recovery of Rs,69,561.80 passed in favour of the respondent-bank being set aside on account of misapprehension about the date of hearing. Notice was ordered on the same day to be issued for 30-7-1979 on the condition simultaneously imposed for the decreed-sum being deposited in cash or a bank-guarantee of equivalent value being provided upto 26-7-1979, which date was subsequently extended to 15-9-1979 for furnishing for bank-guarantee so that the application be accepted. Compliance was not made and extension of time was granted upto 3- 10-1979 but the needful was still not done and the application came to be rejected for the reason of persistent failure of compliance with the condition.
2. Appeal there against was filed by the judgment-debtors in the District Court at Lahore on 8- 104980 which came up on 1-2-1981 for consideration before a learned Additional District Judge who found that the subject-matter was beyond the limits of pecuniary jurisdiction for purposes of appeal vested in a District Court and memo. Of appeal was ordered to be returned for being presented to the proper. Court. The same having been represented in this Court on 4-2-1981, along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 14 of the. Limitation Act, has been assigned F.A.O. No,19 of 1981.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has taken serious exception to this appeal being barred by time by 1-1/2 years inasmuch as there was not even a semblance of justification much less a bona fide error, for this appeal having been instituted in the Court of District Judge to be left unheeded for all that time. Further, he maintains that trial Court's order with regard to imposition of condition was not only passed with jurisdiction vested under Rule 13 of Order IX, C.P.C. But was also eminently justified in the circumstances of the litigation and was never complied with even after securing repeated extensions because it was not actually intended to be complied with.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show any error of law or jurisdiction to be involved in the passing of the order by the trial Court which stood repeatedly acquiesced in by the appellants in requesting for grant of extensions of time for compliance of the condition thereby imposed. Grievance, if at all, could possibly have been made by the decree-holder Bank for the orders being passed at its back and none is open to be made by the judgment-debtors whose plea was therein to be accepted in case of their complying with the lawfully imposed condition but they did not choose to comply with it in spite of securing extensions of time for that purpose. As such, there does not remain any basis or justification for interference therewith being made at the instance of judgment- A debtors in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed even on this count in addition to its being hopelessly time-barred inasmuch as no case has been made out for condonation under Section 14.
5. Result of the foregoing is that there is no force in this appeal which is, hence, dismissed. However, no order is made as to costs.