' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Sindh dated 1-9-1996 whereby a suit for the recovery of Rs,29,84,704.20 instituted by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendants was decreed.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners/defendants and respondent/plaintiff entered into an agreement where it was agreed that the respondent/plaintiff would supply to the petitioners/defendants company pesticides at Vehari. In August 1990 the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant company under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. For the recovery of Rs,29,84,704.20 in the High Court of Sindh at Karachi. Under Order XXXVII, rule 3, C.P.C. The petitioner/defendant sought leave to defend the suit and also moved an application for the return of the plaint, but both the applications were dismissed vide order dated 11-12-1995.
3. The case of the petitioner is that on 10-4-1996 he proceeded to Saudi Arabia to perform Hajj and while he was still abroad when on 5-5-1996 leave to defend was granted subject to the condition that the plaintiff should furnish security for the said amount within 30 days. It is further contended that the petitioner could not be contacted by his lawyer and, therefore, the security could not be furnished and hence the High Court vide order dated 1-9-1996 passed _ judgment and decree impugned for Rs,29,84,704.20 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner: It was also contended before us that in fact the amount is exaggerated one and it was a case of settlement of accounts inasmuch as substantial amount was due from the respondent/plaintiff to the petitioner/defendant, but the same had not been taken into consideration.
4. We have carefully examined all the facts of the case, but we are afraid that no case warranting interference by this Court is made out. The petitioner fully knew factum of the institution of the suit and had also made various applications therein and, therefore, it was obligatory upon him to make necessary arrangements for the defence of the suit while proceeding abroad. The petitioner cannot be absolved of his responsibility on the mere pretext that he was not present in the country.
The law helps the vigilant and not the indolent. In this view of the matter, we do not find- any substance in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.