1988 PLP 555 (PLC)

Afzal Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioners. Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th February, 1987. Since both the above‑mentioned revisions involve similar questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that their applications for setting aside ex parte proceedings were wrongly disallowed by the learned Lower Court. The date of 23‑10‑1986 was for the filing of written statements by petitioner No.l. There was a third respondent also before the learned Lower Court who was Director General, Agricultural Research, Faisalabad. The written statements had been filed by petitioner No.2 and the Director General, Agricultural Research, Faisalabad and the date was for the filing of written statement by petitioner No.l. Nobody appeared when the case was called, therefore, the petitioners were proceeded ex parte. The ground given in the application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was that the counsel for the petitioners was on leave and the Section Officer who had been authorised to appear for the petitioners had become late due to the defective bus boarded by him. The clerk of the counsel had appeared and since he had no authority letter with him, his appearance was not accepted. The Section Officer had filed his affidavit with the application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. The counsel also made a separate application but without any affidavit. No counter‑affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is no authority letter on the file in favour of the Section Officer who had filed the affidavit. No doubt on the file such an authority letter has not been found but admittedly the Section Officer had been appearing on the previous dates before the learned Lower Court and never any such objection was taken. The learned Lower Court too has not in the impugned order said that the Section Officer had no authority to appear. It is possible that some authority letter may have been shown to the learned Lower Court, therefore, the Section Officer Mr. Gardezi was allowed to appear. In the absence of any counter‑affidavit the learned lower Court erroneously did not rely upon the application and affidavit filed by the Section Officer. The Courts should not take a stringent view on the applications for setting aside ex parte proceedings. A valuable right accrues to the opposite party in cases where ex parte decision is announced, therefore, unless there is a very good ground for interference, the ex parte decision may not be set aside but cases where the prayer is for setting aside the ex parte proceedings stand on somewhat different footing if 8 party comes forward with the request that the case should not be decided against him ex parte and that he should be allowed to file written statement and contest the case, ordinarily his request should not be refused. If the petitioners had been burdened with costs, the respondents would have been compensated for the inconvenience felt by them and the petitioners would have a right to contest the case.

4. As a result, I accept the two revisions and setting aside the impugned decisions, allow the petitions for setting aside ex parte proceedings on payment of Rs.200 as costs each case. The cases are sent back. Written statement be filed by petitioner No.l on the date of appearance before the learned lower Court and the learned lower Court shall decide the cases on all controversial points after allowing opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence. A.E./343/Lb.P????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revisions accepted.