1989 PLP 328 (SCMR)
NAWAB DIN — Petitioner Versus SULTAN AHMAD AWAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 328 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | NAWAB DIN — Petitioner Versus SULTAN AHMAD AWAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 328 (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 328 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 328 (SCMR) (NAWAB DIN — Petitioner Versus SULTAN AHMAD AWAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th August, 1988.
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judement and order dated 14-9-1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No. 1288 /1982).
O. IX, R. 13--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Ex parte decree- Proper service--Ex parte money decree passed against petitioner-defendant- Petitioner duly served, reagitated case after period of limitation--Amount of decree not deposited in accordance with law--Contention that petitioner had an arguable case--Findings of High Court on all points urged before it in support of civil revision unexceptionable--Interference declined by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑O. IX, R. 13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Ex parte decree‑ Proper service‑‑Ex parte money decree passed against petitioner‑defendant‑ Petitioner duly served, reagitated case after period of limitation‑‑Amount of decree not deposited in accordance with law‑‑Contention that petitioner had an arguable case‑‑Findings of High Court on all points urged before it in support of civil revision unexceptionable‑‑Interference declined by Supreme Court. Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th August, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This leave to appeal .petition is by a defendant against whom an‑ ex parte money decree wits passed. His application for setting aside of the ex pane decree was dismissed. The High Court having also dismissed his civil revision, lie has now sought leave to appeal. While analysing the impugned judgments, the learned counsel frankly stated that the findings against the petitioner on the points that he was duly served; that he had re‑agitated the matter after the period of limitation; and that the amount was not deposited in accordance with law, might be correct; but, according to him, the petitioner has an arguable case on merits. We do not agree with him. The findings of the High Court on all the points urged before it in support of the civil revision obviously being unexceptionable, no justification is made out for interference by this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. M.Y.H./M‑98/S Petition dismissed.