2008 PLP 721 (MLD)
FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director General, Faisalabad and 3 others — Petitioners Versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 721 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director General, Faisalabad and 3 others — Petitioners Versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 721 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 721 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 721 (MLD) (FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director General, Faisalabad and 3 others — Petitioners Versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S.115---Revision petition--Revision was admitted to regular hearing and notice was issued to respondents---Some of the respondents put in appearance in person, while the others had been proceeded ex pane--Respondents who were present, after seeking some adjournments, stated that they were not in a position to engage an Advocate to appear---Position had been explained to respondents that under the law, regular appeal could not have been decided on merits in the absence of the parties---Allowing revision, impugned judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court, was set aside, with the result that first appeal would be deemed to be pending---Parties would appear before Appellate Court who would requisition the record and proceed with the hearing of appeal.
- Jehanzeb Bharwana for Petitioners.
- 2. Present Civil Revision was admitted to regular hearing in view of the said circumstances apparent on the face of record and a notice was issued. Some of the respondents put in appearance in person while the others have been proceeded ex parte. The respondents present, after seeking some adjournments are stating that they are not in a position to engage an Advocate to appear at Lahore. The position has been explained to them that under the law, regular first appeal could not have been decided on merits in the absence of parties. Reference may be made to the case of Shazia Sultana v. Razia Begum (PLD 2003 Lahore 27). They themselves stated that they have no knowledge of the first appeal and they did not receive any notice.
Headnotes / Summary
S.115
Revision petition--Revision was admitted to regular hearing and notice was issued to respondents
Some of the respondents put in appearance in person, while the others had been proceeded ex pane--Respondents who were present, after seeking some adjournments, stated that they were not in a position to engage an Advocate to appear
Position had been explained to respondents that under the law, regular appeal could not have been decided on merits in the absence of the parties
Allowing revision, impugned judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court, was set aside, with the result that first appeal would be deemed to be pending
Parties would appear before Appellate Court who would requisition the record and proceed with the hearing of appeal.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
For the purpose of this judgment, reference to pleaded facts in detail would not be necessary, suffice it to say that suit filed by the respondents against the petitioner was decreed by the learned trial Court on 22-11-2005. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the first appeal which was taken up by the learned Addl. District Judge, Faisalabad in the absence of both the parties. He proceeded to dismiss the appeal after recording a judgment on merits on 18-9-2006.
2. Present Civil Revision was admitted to regular hearing in view of the said circumstances apparent on the face of record and a notice was issued. Some of the respondents put in appearance in person while the others have been proceeded ex parte. The respondents present, after seeking some adjournments are stating that they are not in a position to engage an Advocate to appear at Lahore. The position has been explained to them that under the law, regular first appeal could not have been decided on merits in the absence of parties. Reference may be made to the case of Shazia Sultana v. Razia Begum (PLD 2003 Lahore 27). They themselves stated that they have no knowledge of the first appeal and they did not receive any notice.
3. In view of above, this Civil Revision accordingly is allowed, impugned judgment and decree, dated 18-9-2006 passed by the learned Addl. District judge, Faisalabad is set aside, the result would be that the first appeal filed by the petitioner shall be deemed pending. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Faisalabad on 10-4-2008 who shall requisition the record and proceed with the hearing of the appeal himself or entrust the matter to some learned Addl. District Judge who will also summon the remaining respondents and decide the appeal in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
4. A copy of this order be remitted to the learned District Judge, Faisalabad. H.B.T./F-2/L Case remanded.