' This petition under Articel 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question the judgment dated 15-4.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against order dated 2-7-1988 allowing an application for setting aside the decree dated 17-1-1982.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration against respondent No,1 with regard to Shop No, P/34/13.2 Sammundri City. The suit was decreed ex parte by the learned Civil Judge, Sammundri, vide his order dated 17-1-1982. Respondent No,1 filed an application for setting aside of the same on 5-10-1985, which was accepted by the trial Court vide order dated 2- 7-1988. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a revision petition, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad vide order dated 15-4-1990, as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge agreed to the setting aside of the ex parte decree on payment of costs. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:-- "The learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the nominal costs were awarded to the petitioner/plaintiff by the learned trial Court and that the respondent was ready to pay costs of Rs,2,000 to the petitioner/plaintiff and that this Civil revision be dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, this civil revision, as such is liable to dismissal."
' The learned Additional District Judge concurred with the findings arrived at by learned trial Court on merits that service of the respondent was not validly effected and that that the respondent was not evading the service. It was further held that ex parte decree came to the knowledge of the contesting respondent on 15-9-1985 and therefore, the application for setting aside of the same having been filed by him on 5-10-1985 was within time.
3. Mr. Allah Wasaya Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner raises the following contentions:-
(i) that the application for setting aside the impugned decree was time-barred and no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of the delay; and
(ii) that the Courts below have misread the evidence on record while passing the impugned ordeRs,
4. It is not necessary to go into merits of the case. Suffice it to say that costs of Rs,2000 granted to the petitioner/plaintiff by learned Additional District Judge in allowing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was passed not only with consent by learned counsel for the parties, but the amount was also later withdrawn by learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent No,1 has specifically raised this point as preliminary objection No,1 in his written statement that learned counsel for the petitioner received the costs on 3-5-1990 and gave a receipt to the respondent, a photo copy of which was appended as Annexure `R/1' to the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed any material on record to rebut this assertion. Since the payment of costs by the respondent was the condition precedent to the setting aside of ex parte decree and the same having been accepted by the petitioner through his counsel, I do not find any valid reason for interference with the impugned order. Clearly, the petitioner is precluded from repeating his objection for setting aside the ex parte decree in these proceedings.
' In view of the above, I find no force in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed with costs. The learned trial Court is directed to finally dispose of the suit within six months under intimation' to the Officer of Special Duty (Judicial) of this Court.