RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.--- Facts in brief are that petitioner Hafiz Muhammad Ikram was married with Mst. Robina Akram, respondent, on 31.12.1987. On account of differences between the spouses, respondent filed a suit for dissolution of marriage which was decreed on 5.12.1990. The petitioner filed a writ petition which also failed. Subsequently, the respondent on 29.7.1993, filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles. The petitioner appeared and controverted the plaint. Issues were, accordingly, framed. Thereafter, on 27.9.1995 suit was decreed ex-parte. The petitioner moved an application for setting aside ex-parte order which was resisted by other side but ultimately application was dismissed on 17.2.1999. The petitioner appealed which also failed on 16.11.1999. A revision was filed before the High Court which too was dismissed on 19.1.2000. In the present petition, above referred judgments have been assailed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that absence of the petitioner was not intentional instead his counsel had noted wrong date of hearing. Instead of noting 27.9.1995 he thought that next was 9.10.1995, therefore, ex-parte order should have been set aside.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the file. Litigation between the parties for recovery of dowry articles is going on since 1993. At this stage, proceedings cannot be re-opened. While moving application for setting aside ex-parte order reliance was not placed either on the diary where the advocates note next date of hearing nor any other document was produced to establish the mistake. All the Courts below have given concurrent finding. We are not inclined to interfere with them. The petition fails which is dismissed.