1. This revision was directed against the judgment dated 26-3-1994 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby the appeal of the respondent was accepted, the order dated 21-4-1993 and the ex parte judgment and decree dated 29-4-1991 were set aside and the trial Court was directed to decide the suit afresh in accordance with law by providing opportunity to the respondent-defendant to put in his defence through written statement. The relevant facts briefly stated are that the petitioner instituted a suit for damages in the sum of Rs.10,000 against the respondent-defendant and the suit was dismissed vide order dated 18-3-1991. The petitioner -- plaintiff filed a review application before the learned Civil Judge, who vide order dated 29-4-1991 accepted the same, set aside the order of dismissal of the suit dated 18*3-1991 and decreed the suit ex parte awarding Rs.10,000 as damages.
2. The respondent-defendant moved an application under Order IX, rule 13, C.P.C. seeking setting aside of the ex parte judgment and decree. This application was, however, rejected vide order dated 14-1-1992. The appeal preferred by the respondent-defendant was accepted on 21-10-1992 by the learned Additional District Judge, the order of the trial Court was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision afresh after framing necessary issues and recording evidence. The learned Civil Judge then after recording evidence of the parties again rejected the application for setting aside ex parte proceedings vide order dated 21st April, 1993. An appeal was preferred against the said order which was accepted vide the impugned judgment dated 26-3-1994.
2. 3.1 have heard the petitioner who was not represented by a counsel. He argued that the application moved on 13th October, 1991, for setting aside the ex parte order dated 29-4-1991 was rightly held to be barred by limitation by the learned Civil Judge and that the learned Additional District Judge has erred in law in holding otherwise. He urged that in his letter, copy of which is available at page 26 of the file, he had informed the respondent-defendant about the decree passed against him and that the receipt of the said letter has been acknowledged by the counsel of the respondent in his notice copy of which is available at page 28 of the file. I have gone through the letter statedly addressed by the petitioner to the respondent and the notice of the counsel for the respondent addressed to the petitioner. In this notice there is mention of letter dated 5th July, 1991 but it cannot be said that the letter Exh. R/1 at page 26 is that letter dated 5th July, 1991, mentioned in the notice.
3. The respondent as noted by the learned Appellate Court, was not confronted with the letter Exh. R/1 and in these circumstances it is idle to urge that the respondent7defendant had the notice of the decree dated 29-4-1991 in the month of July, 1991, and as such the application moved on 13th October, 1991, was barred by time. Moreover, there is no proof of the fact that the letter Exh. R/1 was received by the respondent-defendant. It is also to be noted that the petitioner produced letter Exh.
4. R/1 in his statement. The letter, if it is original, should not have been in possession of the petitioner - -plaintiff. If it was a copy of the letter, then the said copy could not legally be received in evidence in the statement of the petitioner. The said letter as such cannot be treated to have been proved on record legally. In these circumstances the learned Additional District Judge was justified in law to set P aside the order rejecting the application seeking setting aside of the ex parte order and in accepting the said application and directing the learned trial Court to decide the suit afresh after providing an opportunity to the respondent to put in his dcfence by filing written statement.
5. Substantial justice having been done no case is made out for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. This revision is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to cost as the respondent has not entered appearance to contest the revision.