1. ' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---We have heard the learned counsel at some length. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant moved an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. For recall of orders dated 9- 10-1988, 6-11-1988 and 12-2-1989 in Suit No,746 of 1987 on grounds that such orders were obtained upon the exercise of fraud and besides were without jurisdiction when the application, though it does not bear a date, according to learned counsel was moved on 7-3-1991. Coming up for hearing before a learned Single Judge it was dismissed per order, dated 6-10-1992, the learned Judge holding that there was neither want of jurisdiction nor any case for fraud was made out.
2. ' All that has been urged by Mr. B.M. Bangash is that earlier on in the proceedings an application was moved by the Advocate of the appellant-defendant No,1 for withdrawal of his Vakalatnama which application was supported by a "No-Objection" from the appellant-defendant No,1 itself.
3. Even so on this application the Court chose to order issuance of notice which notice was not served and yet the Court on a subsequent date granted the application on the ground that it bore the "No-Objection" of the appellant-defendant No,1. On principle such an application could have been granted straightaway because it carried the "No-Objection" from the party who had engaged counsel and such party was not entitled to any further notice. Even if notice was ordered that was by way of indulgence and the Court subsequently came to have a different view of the matter and granted the application on its own tenor. The learned Single Judge has correctly pointed out that even if such an order may be an irregular one or even illegal, the same was not without jurisdiction within the meanings of section 12(2), C.P.C. Likewise, no case for fraud was established as the observations in the impugned order would indicate.
4. ' On our part, being anxious to provide an opportunity for hearing to the appellant-defendant No,1 if one was denied to such defendant, we enquired from Mr. B.M. Bangash whether equities would lie in favour of the appellant if we treated the application moved on 4-3-1991 as one for recall of ex parte orders, pure and simple. On examining the matter we find that such equities do not lie in favour of the appellant-defendant. For one thing, a notice issued on 3-12-1989 was served on the appellant-defendant No,1 on 5-12-1989 in the very suit and such notice required that presence of the appellant-defendant at the stage of passing of the final decree. No appearance, in spite of service, even at that stage was made. On the contrary on 23-4-1990 Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate, appeared for the appellant-defendant No,1 and obtained time to file Vakalatnama which too was never filed. Thus for the purposes of the application filed on 4-3-1991 the appellant- defendant No,1 was clearly sleeping over its rights, if any, as from 5-12-1989 and even if the application is treated as one for recalling of the ex parte orders such would be hopelessly belated, without any explanation whatever. In fact, the explanation may only have been that the appellant was interested to settle the matter out of Court, the precise ground on which it had taken away the brief from counsel.
5. ' For such reasons we find no merit in this appeal and dismiss it in limine.