1987 PLP 1462 (SCMR)
Haji MUHAMMAD AKRAM and another‑‑Appellants Versus Syed JALIL AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1462 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Wan Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Haji MUHAMMAD AKRAM and another‑‑Appellants Versus Syed JALIL AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1462 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1462 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Wan Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1462 (SCMR) (Haji MUHAMMAD AKRAM and another‑‑Appellants Versus Syed JALIL AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aqil Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Qureshi Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellants.
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 8‑3‑1986, r passed in F.A.0. No. 238 of 1980). ‑‑‑Art. 185‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1Q08),
0. IX, R. 13‑‑Ex parte decree, setting aside of‑‑Trial Court after coming to conclusion that no plausible explanation had been given for condonation of delay in filing application and that service was duly effected upon respondents at the address given by them, dismissing their application for setting aside ex parte decree‑‑High Court, on appeal by respondents, reversing such findings through impugned judgment‑ Trial Court itself found to have come to conclusion that respondents did not reside at place where summons were served and having once so concluded it would be wrong to hold that respondents were properly served‑‑Decision arrived at by High Court not requiring any interference, appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is an appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 8‑3‑1986.
2. Haji Mohammad Akram and another, appellants, on 14‑1‑1978, filed a suit against Syed Jalil Ahmad and others for specific performance of contract. The respondents were allegedly served but since none appeared, so on 14‑6‑1978 the learned Civil Judge, Gujrat, passed an ex parte decree. On coming to know of the ex parte decree, the respondents on 9‑12‑1979 submitted an application under Order IX rule 13 C.P.C. for its setting aside. This application was contested by the appellants. The learned trial Court framed three issues, one relating to the question whether the above application was within time, the second as to the existence of sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree and the third for relief. After recording evidence of the parties, as to the first issue the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that no plausible explanation has been given for the condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. As for the second issue it held that service was duly effected upon the respondents at the address given by them and thus dismissed their application on 19‑7‑1980. On appeal by the respondents, the learned High Court reversed the above findings through its impugned judgment.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgments of the two Courts and find that the decision arrived at by the High Court does not require any interference. While examining the evidence of the parties, the trial Court itself came to the conclusion that the respondents did not reside at the place where the summonses were served. Once, therefore, it was so concluded, it would be wrong to hold that the respondents were properly served in the case. Thus finding no force in the appeal, the same is dismissed with costs. S.Q./M‑119/S Appeal dismissed.