1999CLC387 (PLP)
AKHTAR JAMIR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus NADIR KHAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1999CLC387 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar. |
| Bench Members | Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J |
| Parties | AKHTAR JAMIR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus NADIR KHAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999CLC387 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999CLC387 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar. bench comprising: Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999CLC387 (PLP) (AKHTAR JAMIR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus NADIR KHAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mazullah Khan Barkandi for Petitioner.
- Saadullah Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th September, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑O. IX, R.13 & S.115‑‑‑Ex parte decree, setting aside of‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Suit decreed ex parte‑‑‑Petitioner/defendant applying for setting aside ex parte decree was served but failed to appear and contest suit for reasons best known to him‑‑‑Witnesses of plaintiff/respondent in application for setting aside ex pane decree had no ulterior motive to depose against petitioner‑‑‑Trial Court as well as Appellate Court did not commit any illegality or material irregularity in dismissing application/appeal of petitioner/defendant‑‑‑Judgment being neither arbitrary nor perverse, interference was declined in revisional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
R.W.1 Assistant Election Commissioner, Malakand. R.W.2 Fazal Karim, Teacher. R.W.3 Ismail Moharrir. R.W.4 Rohi Zamin, Process‑Server. R.W.5 Shabir Khan. R.W.6 Abdus Salam R.W.7 Bakhtiarul Mulk.
4. After having discussed the evidence produced by the parties the Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application, for setting aside the ex parte decree, by his order, dated 15‑5‑1997.
5. Not contented with the said order the petitioner/defendant filed an appeal before the District Judge/Zaila Qazi, Malakand at Batkhela (Mr. Miftahuddin Khan) who dismissed the same on 17‑7‑1997.
6. Hence this revision petition.
7. Mr. Mazullah Khan Barkandi, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Mr. Saadullah Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff present and heard.
8. I have gone through the evidence produced by the petitioner in support of his contention that he was not served in the Trial Court and that the ex parte decree was wrongly granted to the respondent/plaintiff against him. He failed to produce any other evidence in this regard. On the other hand, the respondent/plaintiff produced as many as seven (7) witnesses in support of his contention that the petitioner/defendant was duly served and purposely refrained from appearing in the Court to contest the suit and was, therefore, proceeded against ex parte and the Trial court was justified in granting ex parte decree in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant.
9. I have gone through the entire evidence recorded by the Trial Court, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, and am convinced in my mind that the petitioner/defendant was definitely served but failed to appear and contest the suit for reasons best known to him, with the result that an ex pane decree was passed against him. Since R.W.1 to R.W.7 had no ulterior motive to depose against the petitioner/defendant falsely, therefore, their statements can be relied upon safely. The Trial Court was, therefore, justified in rejecting the petitioner s application for setting aside the ex parte decree. Similarly, the District Judge did not commit any illegality or material irregularity in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner/defendant. Accordingly there is no need to interfere with his verdict, which is neither arbitrary nor perverse, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.
10. This revision petition is quite frivolous and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./203/P Revision dismissed.