TANVEER BASHIR ANSARI, J.---This appeal tiled on 23-7-2001 seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 2-5-2001 passed by Judge Banking Court No,2 Bahawalpur.
2. House Building Finance Corporation, Bahawalpur filed a suit for recovery' of Rs,3,14,191 against the appellant on 2-12-2000. The appellant was summoned through various modes of service to contest the suit. Despite service through registered post as well as through proclamation in the press, the appellant did not enter appearance and was thus proceeded against ex parte on 13-4- 2001. Upon an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the ex pane proceedings were set aside with the consent of the counsel for the respondent/Bank on 26-4-2001. The appellant submitted an application for leave to appear and defend the suit. However, on 2-5-2001 the appellant again failed to appear with the result, that the said application was dismissed in default.
3. After considering the contention of the respondent/plaintiff and perusing the record, the suit of the respondent/Bank was decreed on 2-5-2001.
4. The appellant first filed an application before the Judge Banking Court for setting aside the ex parte decree. However, on 30-6-2001, the learned counsel for the appellant made a statement withdrawing the said application. The application was thus-dismissed as withdrawn by the order of even date by the Banking Court.
5. Thereafter, the present appeal was filed on 23-7-2001. At the very outset it is noticed that the appeal is barred by time. The appellants has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The reason stated therein is that the appellant had filed an application for setting aside of .the ex parte decree which was dismissed on 30-6-2001 and if limitation is calculated from this date, the appeal filed on 23-7-2001 is within time.
6. Ms. Samina Qureshi, Advocate appeared for the appellant while Mr. Muhammad Shamshair Iqbal Chughtai, Advocate is present for the respondent in response to pre-admission notice.
7. The reason stated in the application for condonation of delay as well as pressed into service at the time of arguments is completely devoid of force. The appellant had himself opted to file the application for setting aside the impugned decree which he voluntarily withdrew vide statement of his counsel dated 30-6-2001. The said application was dismissed as withdrawn and not on merits.
8. No ground for condonation of delay has been made out and the application for condonation of delay is rejected.
9. Consequently, as the appeal is patently time-barred. It is dismissed in limine.