1987 PLP 781 (SCMR)
NAZIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus HIDAYAT ALI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 781 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, S. A. Nusrat and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus HIDAYAT ALI and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 781 (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 1987 PLP 781 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, S. A. Nusrat and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 781 (SCMR) (NAZIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus HIDAYAT ALI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Walayat Umar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing; 18th February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated 3‑7‑1984 passed in Civil Revision No. 2008 of 1980) ‑‑‑Ss. 115 & O. IX, R.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑ Application for setting aside ex parte decree‑‑Concurrent finding of fact‑‑High Court refusing to exercise jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C. in view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts below to the effect that petitioner having remained unrepresented, his suit was rightly proceeded ex parte‑‑Case, held, was not a fit one for grant of leave to appeal‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated 3‑7‑1984 passed in Civil Revision No. 2008 of 1980) ‑‑‑Ss. 115 & O. IX, R.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑ Application for setting aside ex parte decree‑‑Concurrent finding of fact‑‑High Court refusing to exercise jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C. in view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts below to the effect that petitioner having remained unrepresented, his suit was rightly proceeded ex parte‑‑Case, held, was not a fit one for grant of leave to appeal‑‑Petition dismissed. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Walayat Umar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing; 18th February, 1987. S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑In a suit brought by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against the petitioner an ex parte decree was passed by trial Court on 26‑4‑1978. The petitioner made an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C . P. C . for setting aside the ex parte decree which was dismissed by the trial Court as barred by time as well as on merits. The petitioner's appeal before the First Appellate Court also met the same fate. It was contended before the First Appellate Court that no ex parte decree could be passed on 26‑4‑1978 as the suit was itself not set down for hearing on the said date. This was found to be factually incorrect as the suit was fixed for hearing on 26‑4‑1978. It was next contended that the petitioner's counsel having pleaded no instructions on the said date the trial Court should not have proceeded ex parte. This contention too was examined by the learned High Court and rightly rejected on the ground that in such evantuality the petitioner remained unrepresented and the suit was rightly proceeded ex parte. The learned High Court, in the circumstances, refused to exercise jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. This is not a fit case for the grant of leave and the petition is accordingly dismissed. S. Q. /N‑7/S Petition dismissed.