This is аn appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County denying appеllant’s petition for reconsideration of an earlier order denying his motion to strike a non pros. In the alternative appellant sought to have the court reenter the earlier order denying his motiоn to strike so that he could belatedly challenge it on appeal. We affirm the decision of the lower court.
A judgment of non pros was entered on September 24, 1976 against appellant for his failurе to answer written interrogatories. The judgment was entered pursuant to the procedure established by Philаdelphia Civil Rule 145 which provided that the prothonotary, upon praecipe and certification of notice by the appellee, was to enter an interlocutory order requiring the adversе party to file answers to interrogatories within thirty days. If no answer was filed within that time, the interlocutory order was to be made final and a judgment of non pros entered. On November 23, 1976, plaintiff-appellant filed a motion to strike the judgment of non pros alleging that counsel had never received notice of the filing оf the praecipe and intent to file an interlocutory order. The oral argument on the petitiоn was heard in February, 1977, but decision was delayed due to the parties’ indication to the trial court that thеy might reach an amicable settlement. When it became apparent that this would not occur, thе lower court sent a letter to counsel informing them that a decision would be reached on June 2, 1977. An order dated June 6, 1977 was mailed to the attorneys on June 8, 1977 wherein the lower court denied plaintiff’s petitiоn to strike the judgment of non pros. Notice of this order also appeared in the Legal Intelligencer. No appeal was taken from this order.
Thirteen months latеr, on July 5, 1978, plaintiff-appellant filed his petition for reconsideration of the order of June 6, 1977 which had denied his motion to strike. This time appellant alleged counsel had not received notice of thе order denying his petition to strike, and asked the lower court to reconsider that order or reinstate it nunc pro tunc in *50 order that plaintiff-appellant’s appellate remedies could be preserved. On October 30, 1978, the lower court denied the petition for reconsideration and it is from that ordеr that appellant has appealed to this court.
The opinion of the lower court supporting the order of October 30, 1978 states that in addition to claiming he never received notice of thе refusal of the petition, plaintiff-appellant argued that the Philadelphia Civil Rule 145 was void for being inсonsistent with Pa.R.C.P. 4019. Although appellant did not raise this issue with his original motion to strike, it is the only issue he raises on aрpeal before us now. Our court has recently declared Philadelphia Civil Rule 145 invalid in
Gonzales
v.
Procaccio Bros. Trucking Co.,
The instant case is similar to
Strickler
v.
United Elevator Co., Inc.,
“Having failed to follow established рrocedures for appellate review, [the moving party] waived any right it may possess to have its сontentions reconsidered in a collateral attack. To uphold [the moving party’s] attempt to circumvent the decision of our court would undermine the validity of the appellate powers аnd permit a party to escape the procedural requirements of perfecting an appeal.” Id.,257 Pa. Super. at 549 ,391 A.2d at 618 .
The reconsidered order was held invalid.
This reasoning is applicable to the case at bar. Appellant failed to exеrcise his appellate rights within thirty days of June 6,1977. As noted by the lower court, the allegation by counsel that hе received no notice of the entry of the order is not credible, since the docket entries clearly reflect that such notice was mailed to counsel and was published in the Legal Intelligencer. Thus, the June 6, 1977 order was final and could not be attacked more than one year later by a subsequent petition for reconsideration.
Order of the lower court affirmed.
Notes
See
Matos v. SEPTA,