A suit for the recovery of Rs.1,90,000 instituted under Order XXXVII of C.P.C. Has been decreed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 16-9-1998 dismissing application for leave to appear and defend, filed by the appellant, where against this appeal has been preferred.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the learned trial Court erred in law in dismissing the application fled by him for permission to appear and defend the suit, as time-barred, which according to him, was within limitation. It is contended that the appellant should have been afforded an opportunity to appear and defend the suit.
3. The record of the trial Court has been perused. It was a suit for recovery of Rs.1,90,000 based on two cheques issued by the appellant, which on presentation to the bank were not encashed. On certain dates the appellant could not be served. Eventually he was served on 31-3-1998 for the next date i.e. 13-4-1998. On 13-4-1998 till 12-50 p.m. None appeared for him and was proceeded ex parte.
It appears that on the same day at about 2-20 p.m an application for leave to defend was made as also for setting aside of the ex parte order. The learned Additional District Judge, found that the application made by the appellant on 13-4-1998 was time-barred and no application had been filed even under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay. The petition being barred by time was accordingly dismissed and the suit was decreed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.