The respondents filed a suit for recovery of Rs.12,000 against the appellant. The suit was decreed ex parte on 24-2-1988. The appellant filed an application for setting aside of the ex parte decree. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 23-5-1989. Against the said order the appellant filed an appeal which was entrusted to a learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan.
While the appeal was so pending on 15-4-1990 the learned Additional District Judge recorded an order that the learned counsel for the appellant before him is not turning up for argument despite several opportunities. He gave a final opportunity and fixed the case for arguments on 3-6- 1990.
On this date no one appeared for the said appellant while learned counsel for the respondents before the learned Additional District Judge was present. The appeal was dismissed in default. On 1-7-1990 an application was filed by the appellant for readmission of the appeal. The application was resisted by the respondents. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The application was dismissed vide order under reference.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the application was filed within time and the learned Additional District Judge has acted illegally while dismissing the same. No-one has turned up for the respondents.
3. I have gone through the record. I find that the cause shown for absence was that the appellant understood the date of hearing to be 30-6-1990 instead of 3-6-1990 and told the said date to the learned counsel and that is why no one turned up on 3-6-1990 for them. I find that the very first objection of the respondents in the written reply was that the application is not supported by the affidavit of the learned counsel for the appellant explaining his absence. The learned Additional District Judge had framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties. I find that what to speak of the said learned counsel appearing as a witness to explain his absence or at least to file an affidavit of the said fact, even his brief or his case diary was not produced to prove the said allegation made by the appellant in his application. In this view of the matter I do not find anything wrong with the impugned order. This F.A.O. Is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.