' Applicant who was a defendant In Suit No,246 of 1993 which was decreed ex pane in favour of the plaintiff (now respondent) on 21-2-1995 by the judgment of Vllth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, South, against which he filed first appeal which was dismissed by the VIllth Additional District Judge, Karachi South vide impugned judgment, dated 1-8.1996, with the following observations: "... In the present appeal the case of the appellant is that he was informed that the Court was lying vacant and the matter will not proceed till the permanent Judge is appointed. If it may be supposed for the sake of arguments that he was told by link Judge/link Court that the matter will not proceed till he permanent Judge of that Court is appointed but it is not the case of the appellant/defendant that he should not even attend the link Court, Thus, the impression gathered by the defendant/appellant that the matter will not proceed by the link Judge/Court is wholly misconceived. The result is, therefore, that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred by two months and 9 days for Which no plausible explanation/reasons is shown by the appellant/defendant. It will, therefore, futile to discuss on the factual side of the case. The judgment and decree, dated 20-11- 1994 and 21-2-1995, respectively passed by the learned lower Court in Suit No,246 of 1993, filed by the respondent/plaintiff is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed being hopelessly time- barred by two months and 9 days, 2, I have heard Mr, S.M. Alam, Advocate, for the applicant who has argued that since the learned Judge who pronounced the ex pane judgment/decree was acting as link Judge, he was not competent to pass any final order or judgment, On the point why the defendant and his counsel did not appear during the proceedings before the trial Court, it was argued that since the concerned Judge was transferred and , the Court was lying vacant, the defendant and his counsel were not required to appear before the Court of link Judge whose function, according to the learned counsel, is to give future dates only. It was further submitted that the link or vacation Judge is not competent to record evidence. Reliance was placed on the provisions of section 23 of the Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, which reads as follows:-- "Section 23. Temporary vacancy of office of Civil Judge.--- In the event of the death, suspension or temporary, absence of any Civil Judge, the District Judge may empower any other Civil Judge of the District to perform the duties of the Judge of the vacated Civil Court, either at the place of such Court or of his own Court, but in every such case the registers and records of the two Courts shall be kept separately."
3. The applicant/defendant has also filed Diary sheet of the Suit No,246 of 1993 which indicates that on 25-4-1994 the counsel for the defendant appeared for the last time before the trial Court when the Issues were settled by the Court. Thereafter, the matter went for recording of plaintiff's evidence. But till 20th November, 1994, neither defendant nor his counsel appeared and as a result an ex parte judgment was pronounced on the said date. Even thereafter the applicant/defendant did not appear nor enquired about the fate of the suit. According to the applicant, it was on 15-5- 1995 that he came to know about the judgment/decree of the trial Court as he received a notice of the execution proceedings. The appeal filed against the judgment/decree was again time-barred and no sufficient reason was shown which was rightly dismissed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Karachi (South). Again the same plea has been raised before this Court as it was urged before the 1st Appellate Forum.
4. Section 23 of the Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, empowers the District Judge to assign any other Civil Judge the duties of the Judge of the vacant Civil Court in the event of death, suspension or temporary absence, to act for such vacant Civil Court in addition to the work of his -own Court.
There are three different situations, existence of any of which is the precondition for appointing any Civil Judge as vacation Judge. In no manner this limits the power of the Judge working as a vacation Judge or a link Judge to conduct proceeding of the vacant Civil Court and to pass any order or judgment. The term "duties of the Judge of the vacated Civil Court" clearly reflects that such Judge is fully competent to pass any order within four corners of law and within his jurisdiction. In the matter of Mosam Khan and others v. Mir Alam Khan (PLD 1992 SC 47) it was held inter alia, by the Honourable Supreme Court that even for one day's business of a Civil Judge, the District Judge is empowered to assign any other Civil Judge to perform the duties of the vacant Civil Court, I am alp forfeited in my view by a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ghulam All v, Nawaz All and 2 others (PLD 1975 Karachi 1090 at 1094) where section 23 of the Ordinance, 1962 was interpreted in the following manner: "Section 73 empowers the District Judge to assign the work of one Civil Judge to another Civil Judge in case of vacancy of the kind mentioned in section 23 and in circumstances specifically mentioned therein. Though the administrative Orders of the District Judge refer to section 23, but they should be deemed to have been made under sections 14 and 15 read with section 6 of the Ordinance, as a mistaken reference to a section of the Ordinance would not invalidate the orders it the District Judge is otherwise vested with jurisdiction to assign civil work among the Courts under his control...."
5. What Mr. S.M. Alam has suggested cannot be upheld as this will amount to allowing the parties and their advocates not to attend the Court which has fallen vacant. This was never the spirit behind enacting section 23 of the Ordinance, 1962. I have summoned the record from the office of learned District Judge, South, which shows that on promotion of the then VIIth Senior Civil Judge, South, as Additional District Judge, in the month of March, 1994, another Judge was appointed to perform the duties of that Court who performed such duties till May, 1995. A Civil Judge who has been authorised to perform the duties of a Judge of a vacant Court (commonly called as link Judge amongst the members of the Bar) maintains separate list of his disposal and other work as he is entitled for an extra salary up to 10% of his own salary. A Link Judge, as a matter of caution does not pass orders of final nature when he is assigned the job of vacant Court for a brief period to say, for one or two days. But in the instant case, the concerned Civil Court remained vacant for a longer period of nearly eight months. In such circumstances, the link Judge was fully competent in law as well as justified by the circumstances to pronounce the judgment ex parte. He was assigned the functions of the vacant Court by the District Judge, South, as provided under section 23 of the Ordinance, 1962. He has not shown any haste. All reasonable opportunity was extended to the defendant/petitioner to appear, defend and to produce evidence which was not availed by the applicant/defendant on frivolous and vexatious grounds. No other ground has been urged by Mr. S.M. Alam to invite interference of this Court under section 115, C.P.C. There appears no jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the two subordinate Courts. This petition, therefore, must fail.
6. There is another aspect of the case which cannot be ignored. The appeal before the District Judge was barred by two months and nine days. Again same ground was urged before the Appellate Court by the applicant as before this Court. No other satisfactory reason was shown in order to see condonation of delay. On this score also, this revision is liable to be dismissed.
7. In view of the fact that a link Judge was authorised to perform all judicial functions, therefore, he was competent to record all the evidence of the plaintiff and decide the case on merits, there appears neither any illegality nor any irregularity in the two orders passed by the learned subordinate Courts and, therefore, I am no inclined to interfere with the same. The applicant and his counsel, who were defendant before the trial Court, acted in g most negligent manner by not attending the Court proceedings for more than five months. There was no justification for such nonappearance. The VII Senior Civil Judge Karachi South, had acted 'within for the corners of law.
Resultantly, this revision application filed under section 115, C.P.C. Dismissed in limine along with listed application with no order as to cost.