1976 PLP 392 (SCMR)
Mst. HANIFAN BIBI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus KALU AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1976 PLP 392 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑ O. IX, r. 6‑Ex parts decree‑‑Defendant appointing H as his special attorney to defend suit originally filed at C but later transferred to K‑Special attorney and other defendants bound down to appear before transferee Court at K on a given date, special attorney appearing on such date but later on absenting herself‑Substituted service effected on special attorney's principal and in his absence ex parte decree passed‑Plea of special attorney having been appointed to appear is Court at C only, held, without substance; special attorney had to defend suit and her appointment not confined to appearance in any particular Court.‑Ex parte decree. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yaqub Ali, C. J. and Muhammad Gul, J |
| Parties | Mst. HANIFAN BIBI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus KALU AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 392 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 392 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑ O. IX, r. 6‑Ex parts decree‑‑Defendant appointing H as his special attorney to defend suit originally filed at C but later transferred to K‑Special attorney and other defendants bound down to appear before transferee Court at K on a given date, special attorney appearing on such date but later on absenting herself‑Substituted service effected on special attorney's principal and in his absence ex parte decree passed‑Plea of special attorney having been appointed to appear is Court at C only, held, without substance; special attorney had to defend suit and her appointment not confined to appearance in any particular Court.‑Ex parte decree. bench comprising: Muhammad Yaqub Ali, C. J. and Muhammad Gul, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 392 (SCMR) (Mst. HANIFAN BIBI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus KALU AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing : 20th November 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22‑7‑1974, in Civil Revision No. 559 of 1974). ‑‑‑ O. IX, r. 6‑Ex parts decree‑‑Defendant appointing H as his special attorney to defend suit originally filed at C but later transferred to K‑Special attorney and other defendants bound down to appear before transferee Court at K on a given date, special attorney appearing on such date but later on absenting herself‑Substituted service effected on special attorney's principal and in his absence ex parte decree passed‑Plea of special attorney having been appointed to appear is Court at C only, held, without substance; special attorney had to defend suit and her appointment not confined to appearance in any particular Court.‑[Ex parte decree.] Nemo for other Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.
1. Nemo for other Respondents. Date of hearing : 20th November 1975. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C. J.‑‑An ex parte decree has been passed against Muhammad Sharif, predecessor‑;n‑interest of the petitioners, by the Civil Judge, Kasur, declaring that Kalu, respondent, was the owner in possession of the disputed land which he had purchased from Muhammad Sharif by a registered sale‑deed Muhammad Sharif had appointed Mst. Hajran Bibi, his mother, in law, as his special attorney to defend the suit which was originally filed at Chunian but was later on transferred by the Distract Judge to Kasur. The petitioners were bound down to appear before the transferee Court on a given date. Mst. Hajran Bibi put in appearance on that date hut later on absented herself. Thereupon substituted service was effected on Muhammad Sharif and in his absence the suit was decreed ex parse. An appeal was taken from the ex parte decree to the District judge who dismissed it affirming the view of the Civil judge that Muhammad Sharif was duly represented by his special attorney and substituted service had been effected on him. A further revision petition from that order has been dismissed by the High Court. Hence this fie6t.on for special leave to appeal. It is contended that Mst. Hajran Bibi had been appoints special attorney to appear in the Court of Civil Judge, Chunian only The plea is without any substance as fist. Hajran Bibi was to defend the suits and her appointment was not confined to appear in any particular Court. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.