The petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction againstthe respondents, against the disconnection of the electricity supply of the petitioners, till the issuance of NOC and as a consequential relief, claimed that the respondents/ defendants be directed to issue NOC to the petitioners/plaintiffs for getting the connection directly from the WAPDA Authorities. In this suit, the defence of the respondents, was struck off by the learned trial Court for not having filed the written statement and a decree was passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on 12-7-2001. Against the above, the respondents preferred an appeal on 10-9-2001 and alongwith the appeal, they also moved an application for condonation of delay. Through the impugned order, the learned Appellate Court has condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for regular nearing.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was no sufficient cause far condonation of delay and thus, the order passed is in erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that except one of the officials of the Railways Authorities, no one was served in accordance with law. The Railways Authorities were sued through its Chairman and there is no service of the Chairman in this behalf. However, the learned trial Court marked the presence of all the respondents/ defendants and subsequently struck off the defence, thus the Railway Department, which is the main party to the case, was never served or represented and therefore, had no knowledge about the passing of the impugned decree and resultantly, on attaining the knowledge, as explained in the application for condonation of delay, immediately the appeal was filed. Thus, considering the above fact, the learned Appellate Court has rightly condoned the delay. No exception can be taken to such order. Consequently, this petition has no merits and is hereby, dismissed.