2001 PLP 1091 (MLD)
GHULAM RASOOL‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1091 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1091 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1091 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1091 (MLD) (GHULAM RASOOL‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑O. XLI, Rr.17 & 19‑‑‑Dismissal of appeal in default‑‑‑Application for readmission of appeal‑‑‑Appellant had contended that he failed to appear as he understood date of hearing different to the one fixed for hearing the appeal and he had told the wrong date to the counsel as well‑‑‑Counsel for appellant could not explain his absence and had not filed any affidavit in support of stand taken by the appellant‑‑‑Counsel for appellant neither had produced his brief nor his case diary to prove assertion made by his client/appellant in his application‑‑‑Appeal was rightly dismissed in default in circumstances.
- Tariq Muhammad Iqbal for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
13th April, 2000.
Judgment & Decree
Tariq Muhammad Iqbal for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. 13th April, 2000. The respondents filed a suit for recovery of Rs.12,000 against the appellant. The suit was decreed ex parte on 24‑2‑1988. The appellant filed an application for setting aside of the ex parte decree. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 23‑5‑1989. Against the said order the appellant filed an appeal which was entrusted to a learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan. While the appeal was so pending on 15‑4‑1990 the learned Additional District Judge recorded an order that the learned counsel for the appellant before him is not turning up for argument despite several opportunities. He gave a final opportunity and fixed the case for arguments on 3‑6‑ 1990. On this date no one appeared for the said appellant while learned counsel for the respondents before the learned Additional District Judge was present. The appeal was dismissed in default. On 1‑7‑1990 an application was filed by the appellant for readmission of the appeal. The application was resisted by the respondents. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The application was dismissed vide order under reference.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the application was filed within time and the learned Additional District Judge has acted illegally while dismissing the same. No‑one has turned up for the respondents.
3. I have gone through the record. I find that the cause shown for absence was that the appellant understood the date of hearing to be 30‑6‑1990 instead of 3‑6‑1990 and told the said date to the learned counsel and that is why no one turned up on 3‑6‑1990 for them. I find that the very first objection of the respondents in the written reply was that the application is not supported by the affidavit of the learned counsel for the appellant explaining his absence. The learned Additional District Judge had framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties. I find that what to speak of the said learned counsel appearing as a witness to explain his absence or at least to file an affidavit of the said fact, even his brief or his case diary was not produced to prove the said allegation made by the appellant in his application. In this view of the matter I do not find anything wrong with the impugned order. This F.A.O. is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./G‑73/L Appeal dismissed,