1. ' This application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing CMA No, 4082/94, under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. For recalling and setting aside judgment and decree dated 26-8-1993. CMA No, 4082/94 was filed on 13-9-1994. The grounds taken for condonation of delay are (i) that defendant No, 1 was served through District Judge, Rawalpindi and not through District Judge, Islamabad and as such the service of summons was not proper and (ii) after 16-12-1992, the matter was taken up by the Additional Registrar on 1-2-1993 and 8-3- 1993 but no efforts were made to get the defendants served for the aforesaid dates.
2. ' I heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned counsel for defendant No,1, who urged the above grounds and further stated that Mr. M. Mirani, Section Officer of defendant No,1 could not file the written statement due to non-cooperation of some departments and also because of non- cooperative attitude of the Standing Counsel and the Deputy Attorney-General in the years 1992 and 1993.
3. ' In the application filed for condonation of delay the said defendant has not disclosed the date when the said defendant came to know 'about the ex parte judgment and decree. The , affidavit filed in support of the application also does not state any ground for bondonation of delay in filing the application for recalling the ex parte decree. The learned advocate for defendant No, 1 stated at the bar that the said defendant came to know about the ex parte decree on 13-9-1994. This statement of the learned counsel is not supported by any material on the record. On the contrary application under section 5 of the Limitation Act shows that it was presented on 13-9-1994 and it appears that it was prepared before that, inasmuch as in the verification clause of the affidavit the date has been left blank. Had the said defendant come to know about the ex parte decree on 13-9- 1994 and intended to draft the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. For filing the same on that very date, the date would also have been mentioned. In any event in absence of any averment, in the affidavit, the statement cannot be accepted. The record shows that service of summons on defendant No, 1 was held good on 12-4-1993 and the matter was adjourned to 24-5-1993 for filing the written statement. As none appeared for the said defendant and so also defendants Nos. 2 and 3, they were debarred from filing the written statement. Admittedly, defendant No,1 had sent letters dated 10-12-1992 and 12-12-1992 to the Superintendent of this Court requesting for supplying copies of the plaint and the annexure and for time for appointment of a counsel in the matter and preparation of parawise comments respectively. Under the above circumstances, it is established that defendant No,1 was fully aware of the pendency of the suit. It is also misconception to say that service got effected on defendant No,1 through the office of District Judge, Rawalpindi was against the law. The learned counsel was not in a position to point out any specific provision of law for getting the service effected on defendant No,1 only through District Judge, Islamabad. In any event, the fact that the said defendant had written the aforesaid letters in which they have referred to the summons issued by this Court on 26-11-1992 for appearance of the defendants on 16-12-1992, they were fully aware of the pendency of suit.
4. ' The further ground urged that the representative of defendant No,1 could not file the written statement because of non-cooperative on the part of the Standing Counsel and the Deputy Attorney-General, is also a vague ground. Even otherwise these are the allegations by defendant No,1 against the functionaries of the Federal Government and cannot be taken as a ground of condonation of the delay, particularly in absence of any details with regard to the dates when they contacted the aforesaid officers. No correspondence in this regard has been placed on record.
5. Under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the defendant is required to explain each day's delay. The defendant having failed to give explanation for each day's has failed to make out a case for condonation thereof. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. Is dismissed being barred by time and CMA No, 4082/94 is dismissed having become infructuous.