Initially an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff by Mr. Lutf-i-Elahi, Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Batkhela, -by his order recorded on 23-5-1996.
2. The petitioner/defendant then applied to the Court of Mr. Lutf-i-Elahi, Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate for setting aside the ex parte decree. After obtaining the replication from the respondent/plaintiff, the Trial Court recorded "Saboot Thardeed" on the said application.
3. The petitioner/defendant appeared as his sole witness in support of his contention and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the respondent/plaintiff produced as many as seven witnesses in support of his case. These are:-- R.W.1 Assistant Election Commissioner, Malakand.
R.W.2 Fazal Karim, Teacher.
R.W.3 Ismail Moharrir.
R.W.4 Rohi Zamin, Process-Server.
R.W.5 Shabir Khan.
R.W.6 Abdus Salam R.W.7 Bakhtiarul Mulk.
4. After having discussed the evidence produced by the parties the Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application, for setting aside the ex parte decree, by his order, dated 15-5-1997.
5. Not contented with the said order the petitioner/defendant filed an appeal before the District Judge/Zaila Qazi, Malakand at Batkhela (Mr. Miftahuddin Khan) who dismissed the same on 17-7- 1997.
6. Hence this revision petition.
7. Mr. Mazullah Khan Barkandi, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Mr. Saadullah Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff present and heard.
8. I have gone through the evidence produced by the petitioner in support of his contention that he was not served in the Trial Court and that the ex parte decree was wrongly granted to the respondent/plaintiff against him. He failed to produce any other evidence in this regard. On the other hand, the respondent/plaintiff produced as many as seven (7) witnesses in support of his contention that the petitioner/defendant was duly served and purposely refrained from appearing in the Court to contest the suit and was, therefore, proceeded against ex parte and the Trial court was justified in granting ex parte decree in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant.
9. I have gone through the entire evidence recorded by the Trial Court, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, and am convinced in my mind that the petitioner/defendant was definitely served but failed to appear and contest the suit for reasons best known to him, with the result that an ex pane decree was passed against him. Since R.W.1 to R.W.7 had no ulterior motive to depose against the petitioner/defendant falsely, therefore, their statements can be relied upon safely. The Trial Court was, therefore, justified in rejecting the petitioner---s application for setting aside the ex parte decree. Similarly, the District Judge did not commit any illegality or material irregularity in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner/defendant. Accordingly there is no need to interfere with his verdict, which is neither arbitrary nor perverse, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.
10. This revision petition is quite frivolous and is accordingly dismissed with costs.