2006 PLP 928 (YLR)
and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNIS — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 928 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J |
| Parties | and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNIS — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 928 (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 2006 PLP 928 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 928 (YLR) (and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNIS — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Bashir Ahmad Khalid for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 115-Revision-Application for summoning the respondent in person
Appeal filed by petitioner was pending disposal before Appellate Court
During pendency of said appeal, petitioner filed application requesting Appellate Court to summon respondent in person
Application was dismissed
Contention of petitioner was that in fact attorney of respondent had forged some documents and prepared a forged allotment in name of respondent who was a non-existing person
Question whether respondent was an actual living being and interested in pursuit of case was a question, which could only be resolved by his personal appearance in the Court
No justification in circumstances, existed to dismiss application of petitioner for personal appearance of respondent in the Court
Revision petition was allowed and order of Appellate Court to the extent of refusing personal appearance of respondent was declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. Rana Ameer Ahmad Khan, A.A.-G. Mian Humayoun Aslam for Applicants. M. Mohsin Raza for Applicants (in C.M. No.238 of 2005).
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.
Brief facts of the case are that an appeal filed by petitioner No.1. Province of Punjab is pending disposal before the learned District Judge, Bhakkar against respondent Muhammad Younas. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application requesting learned appellate Court to summon the respondent Muhammad Younas in person before the said Court on the allegation that he is a fictitious person and the General Attorney who is pursuing the case on his behalf has forged the said authority. This application stands dismissed by the learned District Judge vide order dated 7-6-2000, the same is being assailed through the instant civil revision.
2. Respondent was not being served through ordinary modes, therefore, he was served through registered post A.D., TCS and citation in Daily Nawa-e-Waqt, Multan. Since none appeared, therefore, he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 8-9-2005.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the alleged attorney of the respondent has forged some documents and prepared a forged allotment in the name of the respondent who is a non-existing person, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner for the personal appearance of the respondent could not have been dismissed in such circumstances.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The question whether respondent Muhammad Younas is an actual living being and interested in pursuit of the case was a question, which could only be resolved by his personal appearance in Court. In this view of the matter, there was no reason to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner for the personal appearance of respondent Muhammad Younas in Court. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. The order of the learned District Judge dated 7-6-2000 to the extent of refusing personal appearance of respondent is declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. The learned District Judge shall fix a date for the personal appearance of respondent before him, whereafter, the appeal shall proceed in accordance with law. C.M. No.283 of 2005. C.M. No. 2-C of 2005.
6. These are two applications under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. for being impleaded as a party. The applicants, if so advised, may make such application before the learned District Judge. Disposed of. H.B.T./P-95/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.