' MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.---This petition has arisen out of a suit brought by the respondent, Mukhtar Ahmad against the petitioners, Muhammad Saleem and others. The suit was decreed ex parte by a Civil Judge. The petitioners made an application for setting aside the ex parte decree, but the application was dismissed on the ground that it was time-barred and that the petitioners had not been able to show sufficient cause for their failure to appear before the learned trial Court to contest the suit. Order of the learned Civil Judge in this regard was challenged by the petitioners by filing appeal before an Additional District Judge. View taken by the learned Additional District Judge was that there were sufficient reasons for making the application but ha upheld the finding of the learned trial Court on the question of limitation. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners, therefore, submitted revision petition before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, but it was dismissed by a Single Judge thereof. Hence this petition for leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judge in Chamber.
2. The ex parte decree was passed on 21-6-1977. According to the petitioners, they were not served in the suit and that the ex parte decree was granted at their back. Allegedly, the petitioners came to know of the ex parte decree on 25-8-1980. On 29-9-1980, they made application for setting aside the ex parte decree. This means that they filed application for setting aside the ex parte decree after 34 days of acquiring knowledge thereof. In view of Article 164 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, the application should have been made within thirty days of the knowledge of the ex parte decree but the petitioners were late by four days in so doing. View taken by the learned Single Judge of the High Court was that this four days' delay had not been adequately explained. He, therefore, found nothing wrong with the order of the learned Additional District Judge and dismissed the revision petition.
3. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that after coming to know of the ex parte decree, the petitioners made application for obtaining copy of the said decree_ which was supplied to them on 28-9-1980 and then on the following day, they filed application for setting aside the ex parte decree. Thus, according to the learned counsel, after excluding the period spent by them for obtaining the copy, their application for setting aside the ex parte decree was within time.
4. Provisions relating to the setting aside of an ex parte decree find mention in rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure. These provisions do not oblige a person making application for setting aside the ex parte decree to file certified copy of such decree along with his application. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any other provision of law or rule where under the said application could not be made without appending thereto certified copy of the ex parte decree. Thus, even if it is assumed that the petitioners acquired knowledge of the ex parte decree on 25-8-1980, there is no good explanation for their failure to file application for setting the ex parte decree after four days of the running out of the period of limitation, namely, 30 days following acquisition of knowledge of the ex parte decree.
5 In the circumstances, no legitimate exception can be taken to the order of the learned Judge in Chamber. Leave to appeal against his order is, therefore, refused and the petition in hand dismissed.