1970 PLP (1) (SCMR)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus Mst. AISHA-Respondent
| Citation | 1970 PLP (1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus Mst. AISHA-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP (1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP (1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP (1) (SCMR) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus Mst. AISHA-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 11th October 1967.
- Iftikhar Ali Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masood Akhtar, Attorney fur Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 1st June 1967, in Civil Revision No. 481 of 1964). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, r. 9-Ex part decree set aside because defendant an old and illiterate woman had been wrongly informed by plaintiff that suit had been dismissed-High Court, held, in circumstance, was right in referring interference with order in revision. Iftikhar Ali Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masood Akhtar, Attorney fur Petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE‑AKBAR, J.‑Special Leave to Appeal is sought against an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court declining to interfere in revision with the order of the Civil Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, by which lie had set aside an ex parte decree against the defendant Mst. Aisha, an illiterate old woman. The Civil Judge was satisfied from her evidence that she did not attend the Court on the date fixed for hearing of the suit because the plaintiffs had informed her that their suit had been dismissed for non‑payment of court‑fees. He accordingly set aside the ex parte decree which had been passed against her. The High Court was, therefore, justified in declining to interfere with his order. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.