1. ' This is an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed on behalf of the defendant No,2, Shaikh Muhammad Ramzan, praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17-12-1992 passed in Suit No,1181/91. In response to the notice the decree-holder has filed counter-affidavit dated 14-6- 1995 to this application.
2. ' Miss Mehrunnisa, learned advocate for applicant/defendant No,2, has contended that ex parte judgment and decree was passed and the Applicant was not given an opportunity to defend the case. Her further contention was that the defendant was ready and willing to pay as per Agreement but the Plaintiff/DH failed to lift the cotton as agreed upon and as such the defendant suffered losses.
3. ' Mr. Ziauddin Nasir, the learned counsel appearing for the decree-holder contended that the Main Application is time-barred as the judgment and decree was passed on 17-12-1992 while the J.
4. Miscellaneous Application was filed on 9-2-1995.
5. ' I have heard both the counsel and have perused the record of J. Miscellaneous as well as of the suit.
6. Admittedly, the judgment and decree are dated 17-12-1992 while the present application was filed on 9-2-1995 beyond the period of one year. No application under Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay as such the J. Miscellaneous is liable to be dismissed on this very ground. The defendant was well aware of the suit proceedings as he had filed the application for leave to defend. The said application was also filed beyond the statutory period of ten A days without any supporting application under Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The defendant remained absent although opportunity was given to him. In the circumstances the application was dismissed and the suit was decreed on merits.
7. ' The learned counsel for the applicant/defendant No,2 could not pinpoint any fraud or misrepresentation by the plaintiff in obtaining the judgment and decree.
8. ' In view of the above, the mian application is dismissed.
9. 1.
1. CMA No, 893/95: ' In view of the order passed at Sr. No,2 above, CMA No,893/95 has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.