2002 PLP 3221 (YLR)

‑‑‑S.5‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877, S.54‑‑ Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 96 & 115‑‑Suit for permanent injunction‑‑‑Appeal against original decree‑‑‑Delay, condonation of‑‑‑Defendants having not filed written statement, their defence was struck off by Trial Court and a decree was passed in favour of plaintiffs‑‑‑Appeal filed by defendants against judgment and decree of Trial Court was admitted by the Appellate Court for regular hearing after condoning the delay‑‑‑Plaintiffs in their revision petition had challenged the order condoning delay contending that the said order had been passed in erroneous exercise of jurisdiction as there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay‑‑‑Except one of the officials of defendant Authority, no one was served in accordance with, law‑‑‑Authority was sued through its Chairman, but there was no service on the Chairman in that behalf‑‑‑Trial Court marked presence of all the defendants and subsequently struck off their defence‑‑ Department (Railway) which was main party to the case was‑never served or represented and had no, knowledge about the passing of decree‑‑‑Defendants, obtaining knowledge immediately filed appeal‑‑‑Appellate Court, in circumstances, had rightly condoned delay‑‑ No exception could be taken to the said order. Qamar Riaz Hussain Basra for Petitioners. Tariq Shamim and Shah Muhammad for Respondents. The petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents, against the disconnection of the electricity supply of the petitioners, till the issuance of NOC and as a consequential relief, claimed that the respondents/ defendants be directed to issue NOC to the petitioners/plaintiffs for getting the connection directly from the WAPDA Authorities. In this suit, the defence of the respondents, was struck off by the learned trial Court for not having filed the written statement and a decree was passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on 12‑7‑2001. Against the above, the respondents preferred an appeal on 10‑9‑2001 and alongwith the appeal, they also moved an application for condonation of delay. Through the impugned order, the learned Appellate Court has condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for regular hearing.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay and thus, the order passed is in erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that except one of the officials of the Railways Authorities, no one was served in accordance with law. The Railways Authorities were sued through its Chairman and there is no service of the Chairman in this behalf. However, the learned trial Court marked the presence of all the respondents/ defendants and subsequently struck off the defence, thus the Railway Department, which is the main party to the case, was never served or represented and therefore, had no knowledge about the passing of the impugned decree and resultantly, on attaining the knowledge, as explained in the application for condonation of delay, immediately the appeal was filed. Thus, considering the above fact, the learned Appellate Court has rightly condoned the delay. No exception can be taken to such order. Consequently, this petition has no merits and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1026/L Petition dismissed.