2003 PLP 1754 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MURAD — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1754 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MURAD — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1754 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1754 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1754 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MURAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Ali Gillani for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Zafar Khan Sial for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
O. IX, R. 13 & O. XXXVII, Rr. 2, 3 & 4
Suit for recovery of amount on basis of pronote
Application to appear and defend suit
Ex parte decree, setting aside of
Ex parte decree for recovery of money was passed
Defendants/judgment-debtors filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree on ground that their service on the summons was not effected and alongwith said application they also filed application for seeking leave to appear and defend the suit
Application for setting aside ex parte decree having been dismissed by Trial Court, defendants had assailed said order in revision
Ex parte decree for recovery of amount was passed on the basis of a pronote and receipt purporting to be executed by defendants
Even if it was accepted that defendants were not served, no defence was disclosed by them in their application on which required investigation in the suit, after setting aside ex parte decree, could take place
Application for seeking leave to appear and defend suit, annexed with application for setting aside ex parte decree also did not disclose any defence
Ex parte decree could be set aside under R.4 of O.XXXVII, C.P.C., under special circumstances and leave to defend suit could be granted to defendants who would be able to show special circumstances warranting setting aside of ex parte decree
Term 'special circumstances' was stricter than the terms "good cause" or "sufficient cause" and would include merits of the case
Defendants having failed to disclose any defence either in their application for setting aside ex parte decree or in their application for seeking permission to appear and defend suit, there was no sense in setting aside ex parte decree with the object of granting leave, to defendants .to appear and defend suit.
Judgment & Decree
An ex parte decree for recovery of money under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. was passed by learned District Judge, Khanewal on 14-6-1988 in favour of respondent and against the petitioners. On 27-6-1988 the petitioners filed an application for setting aside the aforesaid decree on the ground that their service on the summons was not effected and newspaper is not available in the village where they reside.
2. Alongwith the aforesaid application they had also filed another application for seeking leave to appear and defend the suit without disclosing any ground on the basis of which the suit was to be defended.
3. The applications were opposed by the respondent (decree- holder). After framing necessary issues and recording evidence, application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed by learned District Judge, Khanewal on 22-11-1989.
4. The aforesaid order of learned District Judge is assailed in this civil revision by the petitioner (judgment-debtors) on the grounds that the learned trial Court had failed to appreciate that the petitioners were not served personally, affixation of the summons was made by the process -server without order of the Court; that substituted service through proclamation in the newspaper was ordered without satisfying that petitioners were intentionally avoiding service; and that postal certificate showing that newspaper containing notice of proclamation was sent to the petitioners was not produced.
5. It was also urged that evidence was misread and overlooked and that it was necessary that the petitioners should have been given liberal opportunity to prove their defence.
6. Revision petition was strongly opposed by the respondent's counsel.
7. Arguments heard. Civil revision and its annexures perused.
8. The ex parte decree for recovery of money was passed on the basis of a pronote and receipt purporting to be executed by the petitioners. Even if it is accepted that the petitioners were not served, no defence was disclosed by them in the application which required investigation in the suit after setting aside the ex parte decree under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. Application for seeking leave to appear and defend, annexed with the application for setting aside ex parte decree also, did not disclose any defence, what to speak of plausible defence.
9. Under rule 4 of Order XXXVII, C.P.C., ex parte decree may be set aside under special circumstances and leave to defend the shit may be granted to the defendant where he is able to show special circumstances warranting setting aside of ex parte decree. The term "special circumstances" is stricter than the terms "good cause" or "sufficient cause" and include merits of the case.
10. There was, therefore, no sense in setting aside ex parte decree with the object of granting leave to the petitioners (defendants) to appear and defend the suit when they had utterly failed to disclose any defence whatsoever either in their application for setting aside the ex parte decree or in their application for seeking permission to appear and defend the suit. Revision petition dismissed. H.B.T./M-2007/L Revision dismissed.