1996 PLP 935 (CLC)
Sh. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑‑Applicant/Defendant Versus COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION‑‑‑Respondent/Plaintiff
| Citation | 1996 PLP 935 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Mrs. Majida Razvi, J |
| Parties | Sh. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑‑Applicant/Defendant Versus COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION‑‑‑Respondent/Plaintiff |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 935 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 935 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mrs. Majida Razvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 935 (CLC) (Sh. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑‑Applicant/Defendant Versus COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION‑‑‑Respondent/Plaintiff). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Ziauddin Nasir for Respondent/Plaintiff.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 12(2) & O.XXXVII, R.3‑‑‑Ex parte judgment .and decree‑‑‑Setting aside of‑‑‑Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree was filed beyond period of one year and. no application was filed by petitioner/judgment‑debtor for condonation of delay in filing that application‑‑ Application for leave to defend suit was also filed beyond statutory period of ten days without any supporting application for condonation of delay‑‑ Defendant/judgment‑debtor having failed to point out any fraud or misrepresentation on part of plaintiff/decree‑holder in obtaining judgment and decree, his petition, was dismissed in circumstances. Miss Mehrunnisa for Applicant/Defendant.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. filed on behalf of the defendant No.2, Shaikh Muhammad Ramzan, praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17‑12‑1992 passed in Suit No.1181/91. In response 'to the notice the decree‑holder has filed counter‑affidavit dated 14‑6‑1995 t0 this application. Miss Mehrunnisa, learned advocate for applicant/defendant No.2, has contended that ex pane judgment and decree was passed and the Applicant was not given an opportunity to defend the case. Her further contention was that the defendant was ready‑ and willing to pay as per Agreement but the plaintiff/DH fair to lift the cotton as agreed upon and as such the defendant suffered losses. Mr. Ziauddin Nasir, the learned counsel appearing for the decree holder contended that the Main Application is time‑barred as the judgment and decree was passed on 17‑12‑1992 while the J. Miscellaneous Application was filed on 9‑2‑1995. I have heard both the counsel and have perused the record of J, Miscellaneous as well as of the suit. Admittedly, the judgment and decree are dated 17‑12‑1992 while the present application was filed on 9‑2‑1995 beyond the period of one year. No application under Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay as such the J. Miscellaneous is liable to be dismissed on this very ground. The defendant was well aware of the suit proceedings as he had filed the application for leave to defend. The said application was also filed beyond the statutory period of ten days without any supporting application under Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The defendant remained absent although opportunity was given to him. In the circumstances the application was dismissed and the suit was decreed on merits. The learned counsel for the applicant/defendant No.2 could not pinpoint any fraud or misrepresentation by the plaintiff in obtaining the judgment and decree. In view of the above, the main application is dismissed.
1. CMA No. 93/95: In view of the order passed at Sr. No.2 above, CMA No.893/95 has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. ' H.B.T./M‑2163/K Petition dismissed.