1989 PLP 1091 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR BIRLAS‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL BHATTI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1091 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Allah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR BIRLAS‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL BHATTI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1091 (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 1989 PLP 1091 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Allah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1091 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR BIRLAS‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL BHATTI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent .
- Date of hearing: 12th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22‑1‑1984 in C.R. 1852/D/83), ‑‑‑O.IX, R.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Ex parte decree against defendant‑‑Defendant's revision against such decree dismissed by High Court both on question of limitation as also insufficiency of cause‑‑Legality‑ Although, it might be possible to ultimately hold that defendant's application for setting aside ex parte decree was not time‑barred, yet no possibility existed to set aside the findings of fact that the defendant had failed to satisfy the conditions with regard to "sufficiency of cause"‑‑High Court's observation as to "sufficiency of cause" being in the field of findings of fact and also being unexceptionable, lave to appeal refused‑‑Defendant being liable to pay loan obtained on promissory note; Supreme Court declined to examine the same on merits either.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This is a defendant's petition for leave to appeal, against the dismissal by the High Court of his Civil Revision. It had arisen out of an application for setting aside an ex parte money decree passed against him. The learned Judge in the High Court has given findings against then petitioner both on the question of limitation as also insufficiency of cause. Learned counsel has raised arguments in support of this petition both on the question of limitation as also the sufficiency of cause. Although, it might be possible to ultimately hold that the petitioner's application was not time‑barred yet it would not be possible to set aside the findings of fact that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the conditions with regard to the "sufficiency of cause". The observations of the High Court in this behalf being in the field of findings of fact and also being unexceptionable, leave to appeal is refused. Otherwise too, after bearing the learned counsel on the question regarding petitioner's liability to pay the loan obtained on a promissory note, we do not deem it a fit case for examination on merits either. AA./M‑771/S Leave to appeal refused.