2002 PLP 3182 (YLR)
ABDUL REHMAN ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 3182 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir and Tanvir Bashir Ansari, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL REHMAN ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 3182 (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 2002 PLP 3182 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir and Tanvir Bashir Ansari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3182 (YLR) (ABDUL REHMAN ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ms. Samina Qureshi for Appellant.
- M. Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for Respondent.
- 6. Ms. Samina Qureshi, Advocate appeared for the appellant while Mr. Muhammad Shamshair Iqbal Chughtai, Advocate is present for the respondent in response to pre‑admission notice.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑O.XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑‑Suit for recovery of amount‑‑ Application for leave to appear and defend suit‑‑‑Delay in filing appeal, condonation of‑‑‑Application for leave to appear and defend suit was dismissed in default and suit was decreed ex parse‑‑‑Application for setting aside ex parte decree was dismissed as withdrawn‑‑‑Defendant after dismissal of application filed time‑barred appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay‑‑‑Reason stated for condonation of delay was that limitation could be calculated from date his application for setting aside ex parse decree was dismissed‑‑‑Reason stated by defendant was completely devoid of force as defendant had himself opted to file application for setting aside ex parse decree which he had voluntarily withdrawn vide his statement and that application was dismissed as withdrawn and not on merits‑‑‑No ground for condonation having been made out, application for condonation of delay was rejected‑‑Appeal being time‑barred, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
TANVEER BASHIR ANSARI, J.‑‑ This appeal filed on 23‑7‑2001 seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 2‑5‑2001 passed by Judge Banking Court No.2 Bahawalpur.
2. House Building Finance Corporation Bahawalpur filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,14,191 against the appellant on 2‑12‑2000. The appellant was summoned through various modes of service to contest the suit. Despite service through registered post as well as through proclamation in the press, the appellant did not enter appearance and was thus proceeded against ex parte on 13‑4‑2001. Upon an application made by the appellant in this, behalf, the ex parte proceedings were set aside with the consent of the counsel for the respondent/Bank on 26‑4‑2001. The appellant submitted an application for leave to appear and defend the suit. However, on 2‑5‑2001 the appellant again failed to appear with the result that the said application was dismissed in default.
3. After considering the contention of the respondent/plaintiff and perusing the record, the suit of the respondent/Bank was decreed on 2‑5‑2001.
4. The appellant first filed an application before the Judge Banking Court for setting aside the ex parte decree. However, on 30‑6‑2001, the learned counsel for the appellant made a statement withdrawing the said application. The application was thus dismissed as withdrawn by the order of even date by the Banking Court.
5. Thereafter, the present appeal was filed on 23‑7‑2001. At the very outset it is noticed that the appeal is barred by time. The appellants has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The reason stated therein is that the appellant had filed an application for setting aside of the ex parte decree which was dismissed on 30‑6‑2001 and if limitation is calculated from this date, the appeal filed on 23‑7‑2001 is within time.
6. Ms. Samina Qureshi, Advocate appeared for the appellant while Mr. Muhammad Shamshair Iqbal Chughtai, Advocate is present for the respondent in response to pre‑admission notice.
7. The reason stated in the application for condonation of delay as well as pressed into service at the time of arguments is completely devoid of force. The appellant had himself opted to file the application for setting aside the impugned decree which he voluntarily withdrew vide statement of his counsel dated 30‑6‑2001. The said application was dismissed as withdrawn and not on merits.
8. No ground for condonation of delay has been made out and the application for condonation of delay is rejected.
9. Consequently, as the appeal is patently time‑barred. It is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A‑561/L Appeal dismissed.