1969 PLP 945 (SCMR)
DR. ABDUL REHM AN‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ANWAR BEGUM‑ AND 4 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 945 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | DR. ABDUL REHM AN‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ANWAR BEGUM‑ AND 4 OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 945 (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 1969 PLP 945 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 945 (SCMR) (DR. ABDUL REHM AN‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ANWAR BEGUM‑ AND 4 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Afrasiab Khan, Advocate Supreme Court‑ instructed by Masud Akhter, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing :12th October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 13th June 1967, in Civil Revision No. 112 of 1965).
O. IX, r. 9‑Ex parte decree set aside on adequate evidence that there was sufficient reason for non‑appearance‑High Court, held, right in refusing to‑ interfere with order‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
O. IX, r. 9‑Ex parte decree set aside on adequate evidence that there was sufficient reason for non‑appearance‑High Court, held, right in refusing to‑ interfere with order‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court. Raja Afrasiab Khan, Advocate Supreme Court‑ instructed by Masud Akhter, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing :12th October 1967. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan refusing to interfere in his revisional jurisdiction with an order of the Administrative Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, setting aside an ex parte decree passed on the 12th of July 1962, on the ground that there was no proper services on the defendants and they had sufficient reason for their failure to put in appearance. The petitioner now seeks special leave and it is contended on his behalf that the Courts below had erred in setting aside the ex parte decree which was passed after substituted service had been effected by affixation on the residence of the respondents, in accordance with the provisions of Order V, rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, after various unsuccessful attempts to got the defendants served in the ordinary manner. Hence the substituted service was in law as good as personal service but the trial Court had merely upon conjectural grounds set aside the ex parte decree. The High Court refused to interfere, as it found that the trial Court had before it adequate evidence to come to the conclusion to which it had arrived both as regards validity of the substituted service and as regards the date on which the defendants came to know of the ex parse decree. Learned counsel however, contends that this was a case in which the trial Court had conic to its findings upon no evidence at all. We and, however, unable to agree, for, we Find that evidence both documentary and oral was adduced before the trial Court and upon a full consideration of this evidence the trial Court arrived at its findings. This was, therefore, not a case of a finding having been arrived at upon no evidence. The High Court, in the circumstances, in our opinion, acted rightly in refusing to go behind these findings in its revisional jurisdiction. We see no ground, therefore, for granting leave in this matter: This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.