' The petitioner is aggrieved against order dated 9-6-1992 of the Additional District Judge, Lahore rejecting his application for restoration of appeal dismissed in default on 23-4-1992.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that respondent Mst. Fazal Mai filed a suit on 25-4-1988 for the dissolution of marriage on various grounds including non-payment of maintenance which was decreed ex parte on 5-12-1989 by the Judge Family Court, Lahore but thereafter on 14-1-1990 an application was filed for setting aside this decree and the following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the petition isswi thin time?
(2) Whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside ex parte decree dated 5-12-1989?
(3) Relief.
3. By his order dated 9th March, 1992, learned Civil Judge rejected the application after having decided all the issues and he was mainly influenced by the fact that the petitioner was appearing in the Court but suddenly absented himself without any lawful excuse and then did not reappear.
4. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order and it appears that the same was dismissed in default on 24-4-1992 and the learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 9- 6-1992 refused to restore the appeal. The appeal was fixed for 23-4-1992 and according to the plea of the petitioner it was adjourned to 3-6-1992 and on this date according to the petitioner he came to know that appeal had already been dismissed in default on 23-4-1992. This explanation has been duly considered in the impugned order dated 9-6-1992 and the learned appellate Court refused to restore the appeal dismissed in default on 23-4-1992.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on the well known judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manager, Jammu and Kashmir, State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another (PLD 1975 SC 678) where it is held that legal technicalities should not be allowed to defeat the ends of justice. I have gone through this judgment and am of the opinion that facts of the precedent case are inapplicable to the instant case. It appears that the petitioner has been chronic defaulter and was not contesting the litigation in right earnest. There is no material on the record to show that the appeal was not fixed for hearing on 23-4-1992, therefore, the learned appellate Court was legally justified to dismiss the appeal in default. The non-appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court as well as before the appellate Court cannot be viewed with countenance in a matrimonial case where the respondent lady pleaded non-payment of maintenance and also hatred towards the petitioner, in a suit.
' For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.