Muhammad Munir Khan, J.- On 4.1.86, Basharat Ali and four others filed suit for the recovery of Rs.25,000/ against Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad and Ch. Mohammad Sharif petitioners in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat. It has been averred in the plaint that Iftikhar Ahmad defendant had obtained Rs.
40,000/- from the plaintiffs on the pretext of sending them abroad. On his failure to do so, they (plaintiffs) asked for the return of money and Ch. Mohammad Sharif defendant No.2 stood surety for the return of the amount received by defendant No.1 Thereafter, Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad defendant made part payment but refused to pay the balance amount i.e. The suit money.
2. The summons were issued to the defendants. They were duly served. They engaged Ch. Mohammad Munir Gondal as their counsel. During the hearing of the suit, the defendants- petitioners and their counsel absented from the court, so the defendants were proceeded ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed against them on 24.1.89.
0n 8.2.89, the petitioners filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. This application was contested and six issues were framed. Iftikhar Ahmad petitioner appeared as P.W.1 He stated that he had engaged Ch. Mohammad Munir Gondal, Advocate as his counsel who told them as and when their presence was required. He stated that his counsel remained for sufficient time and as such, could not appear before the court. He further stated that it was on 3.2.89 that he came to know that the suit was decreed ex parte against them. To rebut this evidence, respondents- plaintiffs produced Ch. Mohammad Munir Gondal, the counsel for the petitioners as R.W.1 who stated that the defendants-respondents neither contacted him nor had given any instructions, so he did not appeal before the court on the date of the hearing of the case. He also stated that he was very much present in the courts on 22.1.89 and 24.1.89. The learned trial court dismissed the application on 8.1.90. The appeal filed by the petitioners against this order was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gujrat on 27.6.90. Hence this revision.
3. Before me the learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the findings of the courts below on issue No.5 which is as under:- Issue No.5 ) Whether there are sufficient reasons to set aside the ex parte decree dated 2.4.1989?
OPP
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was sufficient cause for the non- appearance of the plaintiffs and their counsel on the date of hearing as Ch. Mohammad Munir Gondal, Advocate had told the plaintiffs- petitioners not to attend the court on each and every date of hearing and that he would inform them as and when their attendance would be required in the court and that on 3.3.88, when the petitioners were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte, Ch. Mohammad Munir Gondal, Advocate was ill, and that the findings of the courts below on this issue suffer from mis-reading/non-reading of the evidence.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. Issue No.5 is an issue of fact. The courts below have concurrently found this issue against the petitioners. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any mis-reading/non-reading of evidence by the courts below. In view of the plea taken by the petitioners that their counsel was ill on the relevant date and he had told them not to appear in the court on each date of hearing, Ch. Mohammad Munir Gondal, Advocate was/is the best witness of the cause of his non- appearance of the plaintiffs as well. Strangely enough, the petitioners did not produce him in evidence and he was produced by the defendants- respondents as R.W.1. He has not supported the petitioners. He stated that the plaintiffs- petitioners neither contacted him nor had given any instructions to him, so he did not appear on the date of hearing.
He also stated that on 22.1.89 and 24.1.89, he was very much present in the courts. I do not see any illegality, material irregularity and jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders.
6. For what has been stated above, there being no merits, the revision is dismissed in limine.