1985 PLP 1334 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus HAJI and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1334 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus HAJI and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1334 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1334 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1334 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus HAJI and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3 & Art. 169, Sched. I‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0. XLI, r. 21‑‑Ex parte decree‑ Application for rehearing time‑barred‑‑Non‑appearance of counsel due to absence of relevant page in cause list supplied to counsel‑‑Plea of lack of knowledge of ex parte decree supported by affidavits filed by applicant and clerk of counsel‑‑No affidavit filed by counsel himself‑ Held, in absence of an affidavit by petitioners' counsel, lack of knowledge o date of hearing of appeal, on his part, with counsel in not proved‑ Case being covered by Art. 169, Limitation Act, 1908 leave to appeal refused.
- Pervaiz Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Iftikhar Dar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18th April, 1978, in R.S.A. No. 1031 of 1975). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 18th February, 1985. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 18th April, 1978, dismissing their Civil Miscellaneous Application (No. 450‑C of 1977) under Order XLI, rule 21, C.P.C., for rehearing of their (R.S.A. No. 1031 of 1975) which had been dismissed ex parte.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly that the petitioners filed an (R.S.A. No. 103/1975). It came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 22nd June, 1977. No one appeared on behalf of the petitioners. The learned Judge, therefore, heard it ex parte and announced the judgment on the next day (i.e. 23rd June, 1977). About 4 months later the petitioners filed an application for rehearing 'under Order XLI, rule 21 on 31st October, 1977, i.e. much beyond the period of limitation. It was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay.
3. The reason put forward on behalf of the‑petitioners for non appearance of their counsel on the date of hearing was that the Cause List supplied to their counsel did not contain page No. 47, on which the appeal in question was printed. This plea was supported by the affidavits of Muhammad Nawaz, one of the applicants and Inayat Ali, the Clerk of their counsel. The learned counsel, however, did not himself file any affidavit to the effect that he had not come to know of the date of hearing of the appeal.
4. As for the filing of the aforementioned application beyond limitation it was urged that the applicants had no knowledge of the ex parte decree passed by the Court and that their case was, therefore, covered by Article 169 of the Limitation Act, which provides a period of 30 days for making an application for rehearing of an appeal.
5. These contentions did not find favour with the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' application. Hence the present petition.
6. The same contentions were pressed before us. But we are not inclined to agree with the same. We are in respectful agreement with the High Court that in the absence of affidavit by the petitioners' counsel, the lack of knowledge of the date of hearing of the appeal, on his part, with the counsel is not proved and the case therefore, is covered by Article 169 of the Limitation Act. The petition is dismissed for the foregoing reason. M. I. Petition dismissed.