2007 PLP 1677 (YLR)
UNIVERSAL LEASING CORPORATION LTD. through Authorized Sub-Attorney — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ASIF DAR — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1677 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sabihuddin Ahmed, C.J. and Mrs. Yasmeen Abbasey, J |
| Parties | UNIVERSAL LEASING CORPORATION LTD. through Authorized Sub-Attorney — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ASIF DAR — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1677 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1677 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sabihuddin Ahmed, C.J. and Mrs. Yasmeen Abbasey, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1677 (YLR) (UNIVERSAL LEASING CORPORATION LTD. through Authorized Sub-Attorney — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ASIF DAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahab Sarki for Appellant.
- Nadeem Akhtar Khan for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
The facts of the case are simple. The respondents have filed the suit for recovery of money. The appellant filed written statement on 13-4-2004 and matter was adjourned for framing of issues when the learned Single Judge commenced proceedings under Order X, C.P.C. It seems that notice for appearance of the parties on 3-10-2005 was issued but though the respondent and his counsel appeared adjournment was sought on behalf of the appellant by a counsel holding brief for the one representing the appellant. The trial Court nevertheless proceeded to ask certain question from the said counsel holding brief and upon his inability to answer struck off defence of the appellant. Thereafter; the impugned ex parte decree was passed. Without going into details it may be sufficient to observe that in the event of inability of a counsel for a party to answer question the matter is required to be adjourned and an opportunity is to be granted to the party to appear in person. Even otherwise the law requires that as far as may be cases should be decided on merits. For the foregoing reasons we are of the view there was no justification for striking off the appellant's defence and would allow the appeal, set aside the impugned decree and require the learned Single Judge to decide the case in accordance with law. The single Judge may however, continue to follow the procedure under Order X, C.P.C. which may preferably be decided the suit within 6 months. M.B.A./U-5/K Appeal allowed.