SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.- This first appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code on the basis of a protone in the sum of Rs.22,000/-.
2. Leave to appear and defend was granted vide order dated 10.2.1990 on furnishing security by the appellant till 11.3.1990. This order was not complied with and on 11.3.1990 the suit of the respondent was decreed.
3. The learned counsel has contended that the appellant is an illiterate person and was not informed by his counsel that he had to furnish security. I have noticed that before the learned Additional District Judge, the explanation offered was that the appellant was not aware of the consequence of non-compliance of the order dated 10.2.1990. None of the pleas were sufficient to condone the lapse. I also noticed that even on 11.3.1990. No application for extension of time for complying with the order was made. The appellant was represented through a counsel on 11.3.1990.
1 am not persuaded to believe that the learned counsel was not aware of the consequence of non- compliance of the order dated 10.2.1990.
4. The ing leave was conditional and due to non-compliance of the order dated 10.2.1990, the ing leave to appear and defend stood revoked. No exception can be taken to the decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge. This appeal has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.