1978 PLP 185 (SCMR)
Mst. GHULAM FATIMA-Petitioner Versus QAMAR HUSSAIN AND 5 OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1978 PLP 185 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Akram and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. GHULAM FATIMA-Petitioner Versus QAMAR HUSSAIN AND 5 OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 185 (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 1978 PLP 185 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Akram and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 185 (SCMR) (Mst. GHULAM FATIMA-Petitioner Versus QAMAR HUSSAIN AND 5 OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ------O. XLI, r. 21 read with High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. V, Part A, Chap. III, r. 8-Ex parte order, setting aside of Petitioner's contention of no n2tice of hearing of appeal being ever served on her for relevant dates of, hearing of wholly belied from record-Notice first sent at petitioner's address and served on her through her husband-Subsequently a registered post card also issued to her for actual date of hearing-Posting of post cud doomed to be sufficient intimation to party of date fixed in case-Neither petitioner nor her husband appearing at hearing on fixed date, ex parse proceedings, held, in circumstances, rightly ordered and proceedings correctly refused to be set aside by High Court.
- Nazir Ahmed Cheema, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Wali Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 6th February 1978.
- Nazir Ahmed Cheema, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Wali Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- In order to fully satisfy ourselves we had also sent for the record of the Regular Second Appeal No. 225 of 1962 from the High Coors and have gone through it. It shows that during the pendency of the appeal, on the 1st of June 1962, a notice was issued to the petitioner (respondent No. 1 in the appeal) on her given address for a farzi date for the 11th of June 1962. According to the report of the process‑server made at the back of this notice on the 12th of June 1962, the petitioner was reported to be out of station and her husband Chaudhry Hamid Ahmad, Advocate refused to accept the service on her behalf. In the circumstances the process‑server affixed the notice on the outer door of her house. But the High Court refused to trees it as sufficient service on her. Accordingly, on the 13th of July 1962, a fresh note was issued to the petitioner for the lot of October 1962 (first) At the back of this notice the report dated 30th of August 1962 made by the process-server shows that it was served on petitioner through Hamid Ahmed her husband who received the same in the presence of the witnesses. The Court therefore, treated it as sufficient service on her through her husband. In spite of thin timely notice of the appeal she failed to engage any counsel to represent her in the High Court. In these circumstances on the 26th of April 1974, a notice by post card (A. D.) for 8th of Ma y, 1974 (actual) was sent to bat. Neither the petitioner (respondent No. 1 to the appeal) nor her counsel appeared at the hearing on the 8th of May 1974 and therefore, she was proceeded ex pate. The Court heard the arguments of the appellants in the appeal which was accepted ex pane on the 15th of May 1974. In these circumstances on the 25th of September 1974, the petitioner moved an application under rule 21 of Order XLI of the Code to set aside the ex parts order and for a rehearing of the appeal against her. It was also accompanied by an application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay in the main application. But both these applications were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the 3rd of October 1974 as he did not find any sufficient cause to set wide the ex parts order and to condone the delay.
Judgment & Decree
Nazir Ahmed Cheema, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Wali Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 6th February 1978. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.‑Briefly, stated the relevant facts are that the Regular Second Appeal No. 225 of 1962 filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 herein against the petitioner and others was pending in the High Court at Lahore. Eventually, on the 15th of May 1974, the learned Single Judge accepted the appeal of the respondents ex pane against the petitioner herein. Her application to set aside the ex parte decree and for a rehearing of the appeal was dismissed by the learned Judge on the 3rd of October 1975. In these circumstances the petitioner has fled this petition for application leave to appeal from the order. In order to fully satisfy ourselves we had also sent for the record of the Regular Second Appeal No. 225 of 1962 from the High Coors and have gone through it. It shows that during the pendency of the appeal, on the 1st of June 1962, a notice was issued to the petitioner (respondent No. 1 in the appeal) on her given address for a farzi date for the 11th of June 1962. According to the report of the process‑server made at the back of this notice on the 12th of June 1962, the petitioner was reported to be out of station and her husband Chaudhry Hamid Ahmad, Advocate refused to accept the service on her behalf. In the circumstances the process‑server affixed the notice on the outer door of her house. But the High Court refused to trees it as sufficient service on her. Accordingly, on the 13th of July 1962, a fresh note was issued to the petitioner for the lot of October 1962 (first) At the back of this notice the report dated 30th of August 1962 made by the process-server shows that it was served on petitioner through Hamid Ahmed her husband who received the same in the presence of the witnesses. The Court therefore, treated it as sufficient service on her through her husband. In spite of thin timely notice of the appeal she failed to engage any counsel to represent her in the High Court. In these circumstances on the 26th of April 1974, a notice by post card (A. D.) for 8th of Ma y, 1974 (actual) was sent to bat. Neither the petitioner (respondent No. 1 to the appeal) nor her counsel appeared at the hearing on the 8th of May 1974 and therefore, she was proceeded ex pate. The Court heard the arguments of the appellants in the appeal which was accepted ex pane on the 15th of May 1974. In these circumstances on the 25th of September 1974, the petitioner moved an application under rule 21 of Order XLI of the Code to set aside the ex parts order and for a rehearing of the appeal against her. It was also accompanied by an application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay in the main application. But both these applications were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the 3rd of October 1974 as he did not find any sufficient cause to set wide the ex parts order and to condone the delay. We have bard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the record. We find that the impugned order dated 3rd of October 1974 passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to set aside the ex parte order passed against the petitioner is unexceptionable. The petitioner in her two applications merely submitted that she was a pardahnasin lady and no notice of the hearing of the appeal was rover served on her for the 8th of May 1974 and 15th of May 1974 in accordance with the law. But this contention is wholly belied from the record. As already pointed out above the notice dated 13th of July 1962 sent at her address was served on her through her husband and was accepted by the Court as valid service on her. Thereafter, on the 26th of April 1974, registered (A. D) post card was also issued to her for the actual date of hearing in the appeal fixed for 8th of May 1974. In accordance with the provisions of rule 8, Part A, Chapter 3 of the High Courts Rules and Order, Volume V, the posting of the card a deemed to be sufficient intimation to the party of the date fixed in the case. Neither she nor her learned counsel appeared at the hearing it the appeal on the 8th of May 1974 and ex parts proceedings were therefore, ordered against her. In these circumstances the Court had no alternative but to hear ex parte arguments of the appellants on the 15th of May 1974 for the disposal of the appeal before it in accordance with the law. The High Court in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it under the law has refused to act aside the ex parts order and we see hardly any room for interference with it is these proceedings. This petition has no force and is therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.