1987 PLP 1440 (SCMR)
GHULAM SARWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and other's‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1440 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM SARWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and other's‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1440 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1440 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1440 (SCMR) (GHULAM SARWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and other's‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Abdul Aasim Jafery, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Order of the Lahore High Court passed on 22‑2‑1987 in C . R. No. 447 of 1985). ‑‑‑S. 12(2) & O.IX R. 13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Ex parte decree, setting aside of‑‑Petitioner having failed in proceedings for setting aside ex parte decree, moved application under S.12(2), C.P.C., with similar prayer claiming that decree was fraudulently obtained‑‑Dismissal of application challenged‑‑Supreme Court affirmed impugned order holding that provision of S.12(2), C.P.C. were not intended to be a duplication of proceedings provided for in R.13,
0. IX, C.P.C. and refused leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ The respondents in this petition for special leave to appeal filed a suit against the petitioner for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The petitioner did not contest the suit; consequently on 7‑12‑1982 the suit was decreed ex parte. On 10‑5‑1983 the petitioner moved an application for setting aside the ex parte decree alleging that he had not been served with any summons and that the ex parte decree had been obtained by the respondents fraudulently. This application was resisted by the respondents. The trial Court framed a number of issues; one of these was to the effect whether sufficient grounds existed for setting aside the ex parte decree. The petitioner as well as the respondents led evidence and after considering the same the trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been properly served with summons in the suit; accordingly, it dismissed the application. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Additional District Judge who affirmed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the revision petition. The petitioner then moved an application under section 12 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure re‑iterating the grounds that the ex parte decree had been obtained fraudulently for there had been no proper service. He also alleged that he had not entered into any agreement with the respondent to sell his land. The application was dismissed by the trial Court and its decision was affirmed by the Additional District Judge as well as the High Court. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not persuaded that this is a fit case for interference by this Court. The petitioner's assertion that he was not served with any summons was inquired into in the proceedings which ensued upon his application for setting aside of the ex parte decree. The finding on his assertion in this regard went against him. The provision of section 12 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure are not intended to be a duplication of the proceedings provided for in Rule 13, Order IX, Code of Civil Procedure. As regards his other plea that he had not executed any agreement to sell his land it would have been looked into had he elected to contest the suit. This he did not care to do. In the circumstances we would dismiss this petition. M.I. /G‑26/S Petition dismissed.