1983 PLP 2088 (CLC)

Zahid Hussain Khan v. Muhammad Abdullah P L D 1979 Kxr. 628 ref. Muhammad Ali Jan for Appellant. The present appeal has been filed by Asmat Agencies to challenge an order passed by the learned VIIIth Senior Civil Judge/Controller on 18th April, 1982 in a case filed against the appellant, by respondents for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, and non‑compliance with the direction of tentative deposit of rent. I have beard Mr. Muhammad Ali Jan at length and have also perused the record. Since I have come to the conclusion that this appeal does not merit to be admitted .to regular hearing. 1 have not thought it proper to issue notice to the respondent. Admittedly the appellant is a partnership firm. On my asking Mr. Muhammad Ali Jan, with whom a representative of appellant firm was present, about the composition of the firm and he made a statement that this firm consists of two partners and employs 2 or 3 servants also: Admittedly the rent ordered to be deposited by the Controller under section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, has not been deposited. On an application being made for striking off' the defence, the appellant filed objections. In the objections it is stated that Mr. Rashid Rabi, an authorised Officer of the appellant Firm fell seriously sick and was ‑ unable to attend to his duty and work. It was further stated that on account of sickness of Mr. Rashid Rahi, the appellants were not aware of the order directing the deposit of rent. In. support of the plea of sickness of Mr. Rashid Rahi a Medical Certificate of Dr. S. Akbar Sher was produced. This Certificate was issued on 24th March, 1981 and it is stated that Mr. Rashid Rahi had had treatment for bronchial asthama, hypertention and tachycardia. It was stated in the Certificate that Rashid Rahi bad been advised to take rest. from 25th December, 1980 to 23rd March, 1981. The only contention raised before me, is that default has been committed for reasons beyond the control of the appellant as Mr: Rashid Rahi having fallen sick, was not able to attend the case. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of a Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Zahid Hussain Khan v. Muhammad Abdullah (P L D 1979 Kar. 628). The admitted case is that the appellant is not a single individual but is a Firm having two partners and 2 or 3 servants. It has not at all been explained as to why .the other partner of Rashid Rahi or any employee of the appellant firm was not able to look after the interests of the appellant and had not complied with the order of the Court. In fact the case of the appellant is that they did not even care to know the tentative order passed by the Court. This conduct of the appellant exhibits gross negligence. On the other band, even if it is assumed that only Rashid Rahi could look after the affairs of the appellant Firm, still the nature of disease that he has been said to be suffering from is not such, as might incapacitate him from talking to other persons or give directions to other, employees or his partner to comply with the order of the Court, or at least to find out what was the order of the Court. On the other hand it appears to be hard to believe that a person would continue to suffer from bronchial asthama and hypertention for a continuous period of three months. What is more, that these diseases do not create any unconsciousness or coma. In my view the cause shown in support of prayer for condonation of default is not impressive and does not appear to be correct. In these circumstances, the Controller passed a correct order, which is not unjusti fied. This appeal is dismissed in limine. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.