SCMR 1989

1989SCMR849 (PLP)

GHULAM SARWAR — Petitioner Versus FATZ MUHAMMAD and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.220-P of 1988, decided on 17th January, 1989.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1989SCMR849 (PLP)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ
Parties GHULAM SARWAR — Petitioner Versus FATZ MUHAMMAD and another — Respondents
Primary Law Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR849 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR849 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR849 (PLP) (GHULAM SARWAR — Petitioner Versus FATZ MUHAMMAD and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Representation

  • A.H. Mir, Advocate for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 17th January, 1989.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the order of Peshawar High Court, Bench D.I. Khan dated 29th October, 1988 in W.P. No.29 of 1987).

Ss.12(2), 47 & O.IX, R.13--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Ex parte decree challenged by defendant on ground that he had been defrauded with regard to service of summons--Petitioner defendant, having failed throughout to stop execution of decree on that plea, ultimately filed Constitutional petition which also failed--Dismissal of Constitutional petition impugned--Petitioner's counsel conceding legal proposition that whether it was application under S.12(2) based on allegation of fraud, or an objection to execution of decree based on similar grounds petitioner could not succeed unless he was able to establish his plea on facts relating to question of service of summons--Concurrent findings of fact against petitioner on such issue--No relief could be granted to petitioner on any technicality--Leave to appeal was refused.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑A vendee/defendant in a suit for pre‑emption having lost in the first round of litigation ‑‑an executable ex-parte decree was passed against him, challenged the same in several proceedings on the ground that he had been defrauded with regard to the service of summons on him at a certain stage of the suit. Having failed throughout to stop execution of the decree on this plea, he ultimately filed a Constitutional petition m the High Court and the same having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal. After some arguments it is accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that whether it was application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. based on allegation of fraud, or an objection to the execution of the decree based on similar ground, (an application for setting aside an ex parte decree and or an appeal against the ex parte decree on similar grounds), the petitioner could not succeed unless he was able to establish his plea on facts relating to the question of the service of the summons. There are concurrent findings on fact against him on this issue. His attempt to discredit the Process Server who confidently deposed against him, having failed, no relief can be granted to him on any technicality. It is not a fit case for leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is refused. A.A./G‑162/S Leave to appeal refused.