2013 PLP 488 (YLR)
Mst. RABIA BIBI and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MALIK and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 488 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tariq Javaid, J |
| Parties | Mst. RABIA BIBI and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MALIK and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 488 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 488 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tariq Javaid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 488 (YLR) (Mst. RABIA BIBI and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MALIK and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----O. IX, R.13---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5---Applications for setting aside of ex parte proceedings and condonation of delay---Application for setting aside ex parte proceedings was filed after delay of more than four years---Petitioner contended that no cause list was served on him and he had no intimation of the fixation of both said dates of hearing---Validity---Delay in filing the application for setting aside ex parte proceedings was not satisfactorily explained---Matter was an old one and was pending before Trial Court after remand from the High Court---Revision was dismissed with the direction that case be decided expeditiously.
- Farooq Amjad Meer for Petitioners.
- Farrukh Mehmood Solehria for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
C.M. Nos.495-C and 496-C of 2006 TARIQ JAVAID, J.
C.M. No.495-C of 2006 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing of C.M. No.496-C/2006 whereas C.M. No.496-C of 2006 has been filed for setting aside the ex parte order dated 9-3-2010 as well as ex parte judgment dated 28-6-2002. The C.M. was filed on 11-3-2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners maintained that no cause list was served on him and he had no intimation of the fixation of the case for both of the said dates for hearing, as such he has been condemned unheard. With regard to the delay of more than four years in filing the application, it was maintained that as the cause list was not served. It was only on the asking of the Clerk of the learned counsel for the applicants that he discovered from the office that the case has already been decided vide judgment dated 28-2-2002. Therefore, the application was filed immediately after having got the information that the case has been decided.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the applications and maintained that each and every day of delay caused in filing application against the ex parte order has to be explained whereas the explanation of the learned counsel for the applicants is not sufficient. It is also admitted that it is an old case and vide impugned judgment the case has been remanded to the learned trial Court to decide only a very short question.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Since the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings is not satisfactorily explained. Therefore I am not inclined to accept the application at this late stage. It is an old matter, which is pending before the learned trial Court and has not been decided even after remand from this Court. It is in the interest of justice that the case be decided expeditiously in terms of judgment dated 28-2-2002 passed by this Court, preferably within a period of three months. The parties are directed to appear before the Court, ceased of the lis on 22-11-2010. With above direction both the petitions are dismissed. KMZ/R-20/L Case remanded.