1. ' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 15-6-1994; whereby Civil Revision Petition No, 629 of 1992, against the order of dismissal of petitioner's application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 27-10-1988 passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, was maintained.
2. ' Admittedly two suits of the same nature were filed by the respondent against the petitioner in the trial Court in which summons were issued to the petitioner for 28-2-1988. It is recorded in the Order-Sheet of the suit in question dated 28-2-1988 that counsel for the parties were present and a copy of the plaint delivered to the learned counsel and that the case was adjourned as requested, for filing of written statement and Wakalatnama. On the date fixed again the case was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel to 24-4-1988. On that date Per9kar' was present on behalf of the petitioner and on his request the case was again adjourned to 24-5-1988. The presence of the learned counsel for the parties is recorded on 24-5-1988 and the case is adjourned to 5-6-1988. On the said date i,e. 5-6-1988 nobody was present from petitioner's side and thereafter some ex parte evidence was recorded and the suit was decreed on 27-10-1988.
3. ' An application for setting aside the ex parte decree was made on 9-4-1989 on the instruction of the Head Office, on having come to know of the ex parte decree, on the ground given therein. This application was resisted by the respondent amongst others on the ground that the application was barred by time. After recording evidence the application was dismissed on 29-9-1991 for the reason that no sufficient cause was shown for setting aside the ex parte decree. This order was maintained up to the High Court as stated above.
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the caveator have been heard and record perused. In the application for setting aside the ex parte decree as well as in the evidence produced by the petitioner it was specifically alleged that the petitioner was neither served in the case nor they had authorised any person or Advocate to appear in the case on their behalf. This being the material point for determination of the question involved the learned counsel for the respondent was asked as to whether; the name of the Advocate, who allegedly represented the petitioner in the case, has been noted down by the learned trial Judge and as to whether the memorandum of appearance of the power of attorney has been placed on file as ordered by the Court on the first hearing of the suit. Furthermore, whether the name of `Perokar' is mentioned in the Order-sheet who allegedly appeared in the case in one of the adjourned hearings. The learned counsel for the respondent frankly conceded that neither the name of the Advocate nor of the Perokar' has been noted down in the Order-sheet. Similarly there was no evidence whatsoever of the personal service of the petitioner in the case in hand. This being the position, it was suggested to the learned counsel for the respondent whether it would not be just and proper to remand the case to the Court for decision on merits so as to minimise the agencies of the parties to which the learned counsel did not object. However, he stated that even his previous suit filed against the petitioner is pending since last 7 years and so far no evidence has been recorded, therefore, he requested for early disposal of both the suits. Accordingly, this petition is converted into appeal, accepted and in consequence judgments and orders of the Courts below are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for its decision afresh on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 17-1-1995 on which date the petitioner shall also file his written statement. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the case on merits within six months. No order as to costs.