1989SCMR597 (PLP)
Mst. NOOR JEHAN — Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA alias RAJJO — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR597 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. NOOR JEHAN — Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA alias RAJJO — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR597 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR597 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR597 (PLP) (Mst. NOOR JEHAN — Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA alias RAJJO — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th September, 1988.
- Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 25-5-83 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No.878-D/83).
Art.185(3)--Plaintiff's suit having been decreed ex parte, defendant's application for setting aside the same was dismissed as time-barred as also her appeal and revision--Orders of dismissal impugned--Held, even if it be assumed that it was a fit case for examination of question whether petitioner/defendants' application for setting aside ex parte decree was time-barred, it would still not be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal--Neither non-appearance before Trial Court had been sufficiently explained nor there was any reason to deny the relief claimed by respondent/plaintiff which was allowed to her by Trial Court--Leave to appeal was, therefore, refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Plaintiff's suit having been decreed ex parte, defendant's application for setting aside the same was dismissed as time‑barred as also her appeal and revision‑‑Orders of dismissal impugned‑‑Held, even if it be assumed that it was a fit case for examination of question whether petitioner/defendants' application for setting aside ex parte decree was time‑barred, it would still not be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal‑‑Neither non‑appearance before Trial Court had been sufficiently explained nor there was any reason to deny the relief claimed by respondent/plaintiff which was allowed to her by Trial Court‑‑Leave to appeal was, therefore, refused. Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th September, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by a defendant in a money suit, against the dismissal by the High Court of her Civil Revision. The respondent's suit was decreed ex parte. The petitioner's application for setting aside of the ex parte decree was dismissed as time‑barred. Her appeal and Civil Revision having failed, she has now sought leave to appeal. According to the facts stated at the bar a counsel for the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court in pursuance of service of summons. However, no one appeared from the petitioner's side on the relevant subsequent dates for 1 which adjournment was sought for filing written statement and other proceedings. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question relating to non‑appearance before the trial Court and the application for setting aside of the ex parte decree being time‑barred and the other merits of the case. Even if it be assumed that it is a fit case for examination of the question whether the petitioner's application for setting aside the ex parte decree was time‑barred, it would still not be a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. Neither non‑ appearance before the trial Court has been sufficiently explained nor there is any reason to deny the relief claimed by the respondent which was allowed to her by the trial Court. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused, A.A./N‑115/S Leave to appeal refused.