1988 PLP 670 (SCMR)
Mst. SHIRIN BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus HABIB BHAI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 670 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SHIRIN BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus HABIB BHAI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 670 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 670 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 670 (SCMR) (Mst. SHIRIN BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus HABIB BHAI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑S.21‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O.IX, R.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Ex parte order of ejectment7 ‑Setting aside of‑‑Negligence of appellant and counsel‑‑Consequence of‑‑Rent case at stage of evidence‑‑Absence of appellant and her counsel‑‑Ex parte order due to negligence in pursuing matter‑‑Belated application for setting it aside, rejected and appeal failed‑‑Order impugned‑‑Plea that next date of hearing was not entered in counsel's diary due to mistake, accepted but subsequent inaction for some time when case was adjourned for several times, was unexcusable‑‑Impugned order being unexceptionable, leave to appeal refused.
- M.M. K.A. Zai, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th September, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
From the judgment/order of the Sind High Court, Karachi, dated 28th September, 1986 in First Regular Appeal No.649 of 1984).
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 28‑9‑1986 of the Sind High Court; whereby on remand from the Supreme Court it dismissed petitioner's Rent Appeal against the ex parte orders of his ejectment. The question raised before us is that the order for proceeding ex parte against the petitioner should have been set aside. The High Court observed as follows in this behalf: "Mr. Iftikhar on the other hand contended that the appellant and her counsel had been negligent in pursuing the matter after 15‑11‑1983 inasmuch as no one attended on 3‑12‑1983 when the appellant's/ respondent's witness was discharged who was to be cross‑examined by the appellant's counsel. He further stated that there have been three more hearings on 2‑1‑1984, 15‑1‑1984 and 31‑1‑1984 when the appellant and her counsel absented themselves from the Court and finally they were again absent on 1‑2‑1984 when the order for ejectment was passed
"there does not seem to be any effort having been made by the appellant's counsel between 15‑11‑1983 to 1‑2‑1984 or even up to 26‑3‑1984 for the purpose of ascertaining from the Court as to what had happened to the case. It was a rent case and the stage was evidence of the appellant's witness who was to be cross‑examined and, therefore, the appellant and her counsel should have been vigilant in persuing the matter but they have shown their negligence by not making any inquiries about the matter after 15‑11‑1983 till 1‑2‑1984" .
"Even if an ordinary effort had been made, it would have been easily possible to ascertain from the register of the cases as to what was the next date of hearing after 15‑11‑1983 but no such effort was evidently made and the result was that ex parte final order was passed on 1‑2‑1984 and the application for setting aside that order was made on 7‑4‑1984 which was evidently beyond time." We accept, in the circumstances of this case, the statement of the learned counsel that after adjournment on 15‑11‑1983 on his request, the next date was not entered in his diary due to mistake. But the subsequent inaction for some time when the case was adjourned for several times, is in‑excusable. The impugned orders are unexceptionable. This petition is dismissed. M.I. /S‑110/S Petition dismissed.