ORDER CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J. - The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner under Order 37, CPC before the District Judge, Kasur, who entrusted the same to learned Addl. District Judge, Kasur. The learned Addl. District Judge, Kasur issued notice on prescribed proforma to the petitioner which was not personally served on 20.7.1999 but the petitioner did not i.e application for leave to defend within the prescribed period. The same was dismissed as time-barred by the learned Addl. District Judge vide order dated 4.10.1999, hence the present revision petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner stated that the petitioner did not i.e application within the prescribed period as the respondent negotiated with the petitioner to settle the dispute outside the Court. The petitioner was de-frauded by the respondent but the learned Addl. District Judge did not consider this aspect of the case. He further stated that after addition of Article 2-A in the Constitution the superior Courts insisted that cases must be decided on merits. He further stated that the order of the learned Addl. District Judge is in violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts in 1982 P.S.C. 857.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that notice was personally served to the petitioner on the prescribed proforma on 20.7.1999. By virtue of Order 37 read with Article 159 of the Limitation Act the petitioner has to tile application for leave to defend within ten days from the date of his service but he did not i.e the same within the prescribed period. He filed the same after more than 1-1/2 month of his service. Therefore, Trial Court was justified to dismiss the same as time- barred as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NLR 1994 Civil S.C. 279. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not filed an application along with the application tor leave to defend under Section 5 of the Limitation Act tor condonation of the delay, therefore, the order of the learned Addl. District Judge is valid as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PLD 1984 S.C. 236 and the learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any material 1 irregularity committed by the Addl. District Judge, Kasur.
S In view of what has been discussed above this revision petition is not maintainable as the principle laid down in the following judgments; PLD 1955 F.C. 38 PLD 1949 P.C. 26.
The revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable.