1995 PLP 1085 (MLD)
Syed YUSUF ALI SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. REHMAT ELAHI‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1085 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Amir Malik, J |
| Parties | Syed YUSUF ALI SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. REHMAT ELAHI‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1085 (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 1995 PLP 1085 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Amir Malik, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1085 (MLD) (Syed YUSUF ALI SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. REHMAT ELAHI‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for Petitioner.
- Malik Muhammad Afzal for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑O.IX, R.13 & S.115‑‑‑Time‑barred revision‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Ex parte decree was set aside on payment of costs‑‑‑Defendant failing to pay costs on specified date‑‑‑Time for payment of costs extended by Court on further costs‑‑ Defendant failed to appear on that date nor costs were paid nor any one appeared on behalf of defendant‑‑‑Defendant's original application for setting aside ex parte decree was set aside for his non‑appearance and for non -payment of costs‑‑‑Defendant filing revision after about 1‑1/2 years ‑‑‑Effect‑‑ Merit of revision had to be ignored on account of conduct of defendant‑‑‑Delay of 1‑1/2 years in filing revision against order in question, would disentitle defendant to any relief on ground of such delay.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Muhammad Afzal for Respondent. Mst. Rehmat Elahi, respondent filed a suit against Syed Yousaf Ali Shah, petitioner for recovery of Rs.24,
500. It was decreed ex parte on 17‑6‑1989.
2. For setting aside the ex parte decree application was accepted on the statements of the counsel for the parties on 7‑11‑1990 on payment of Rs.300 as costs. The case was adjourned to 24‑11‑1990.
3. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree, as contended at the Bar, was dismissed in default under the impugned order dated 17‑12‑1990. On that very day application was moved which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Bahawalpur on 27‑4‑1991 without calling for reply or settling issues. The order has been challenged in the present revision petition.
4. From the statement of facts given in the revision petition and the impugned order it appears that neither the learned Civil Judge correctly appreciated the situation nor the petitioner. From the record it appears that the ex parte decree was set aside, as observed above, on 7‑11‑1990 on the statements of the counsel for the parties on payment of Rs.300 as costs and case adjourned to 2411‑1990. On this date inability was shown to pay the costs and the case was adjourned to 29‑11‑1990. On this date as well the costs could not be paid and so further costs of Rs.50 were imposed and case adjourned to 17‑12‑1990. On this date none appeared for the present petitioner/defendant and so, the original application for setting aside the ex parte decree was set aside.
5. In the circumstances, there is force in the contention that the ex parte decree having been set aside on the statements of the counsel for the parties, the same could not have been dismissed in default and rather costs of Rs.300 when not paid in Court, the same could be recovered as costs of the decree. But the merits of the revision petition must be ignored in view of the conduct of the petitioner. The impugned order was passed, as observed above, on 17‑12‑1991 and the revision petition was filed on 21‑5‑1992. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff‑decree‑holder has pointed out that even execution was withdrawn and 2/3 instalments recovered and realised. What the revision petition had been doing for a period of about 1‑1/2 years after the impugned order is not made clear and this conduct does not entitle him to any relief.
6. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. AA./Y‑20 Revision dismissed.