Mst. Rehmat Elahi, respondent filed a suit against Syed Yousaf A.I Shah, petitioner for recovery of Rs.24,500. It was decreed ex parte on 17-6-1989.
2. For setting aside the ex parte decree application was accepted on the statements of the counsel for the parties on 7-11-1990 on payment of Rs.300 as costs. The case was adjourned to 24-11-1990.
3. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree, as contended at the Bar, was dismissed in default under the impugned order dated 17-12-1990. On that very day application was moved which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Bahawalpur on 27-4-1991 without calling for reply or settling issues. The order has been challenged in the present revision petition.
4. From the statement of facts given in the revision petition and the impugned order it appears that neither the learned Civil Judge correctly appreciated the situation nor the petitioner. From the record it appears that the ex parte decree was set aside, as observed above, on 7-11-1990 on the statements of the counsel for the parties on payment of Rs.300 as costs and case adjourned to 2411-1990. On this date inability was shown to pay the costs and the case was adjourned to 29-11- 1990. On this date as well the costs could not be paid and so further costs of Rs.50 were imposed and case adjourned to 17-12-1990. On this date none appeared for the present petitioner/defendant and so, the original application for setting aside the ex parte decree was set aside.
5. In the circumstances, there is force in the contention that the ex parte decree having been set aside on the statements of the counsel for the parties, the same could not have been dismissed in default and rather costs of Rs.300 when not paid in Court, the same could be recovered as costs of the decree. But the merits of the revision petition must be ignored in view of the conduct of the petitioner. The impugned order was passed, as observed above, on 17-12-1991 and the revision petition was filed on 21-5-1992. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff-decree-holder has pointed out that even execution was withdrawn and 2/3 instalments recovered and realised. What the revision petition had been doing for a period of about 1-1/2 years after the impugned order is not made clear and this conduct does not entitle him to any relief.
6. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.