2008 PLP 1417 (SCMR)
JAVAID SIDDIQ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAVAID UMAR KHAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1417 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | JAVAID SIDDIQ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAVAID UMAR KHAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1417 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1417 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1417 (SCMR) (JAVAID SIDDIQ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAVAID UMAR KHAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Shahid Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Latif Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th December, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 18-4-2003 passed in F.A.O. No.392 of 2001).
O. IX, R.13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Ex parte decree, setting aside of
Absence of defendant and his counsel
Suit for recovery pf money was filed under O.XXXVII, C.P.C. by the plaintiffs
Defendant filed Vakalatnama on 10-10-2000, and time was secured for applying for leave to defend
Case was taken up on 13-10-2000 but nobody turned up from the side of the defendant and the case was adjourned
Even on the adjourned dated no one appeared on behalf of the defendant
Ex parte proceedings were initiated against the defendant and after recording ex parte evidence, Trial Court decreed the suit
Defendant in his application under O.IX, R.13, C.P.C. for setting aside of ex parte decree, did not give any reason for his own absence or that of his counsel
Plea raised by the defendant was that the absence was not wilful
High Court had given cogent reasons while upholding/maintaining the order of Trial Court decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs
Supreme Court did not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the ex parte judgment passed by the Trial Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 18-4-2003 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed F.A.O. No.392 of 2001 filed by the petitioner.
2. Facts briefly are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,00,000 against the petitioner-defendant under the provisions of Order 37, C.P.C. The same was decreed ex parte on 19-10-2000 by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, vide his judgment, dated 19-10-2000. The petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 9, rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 19-10-2000 which was dismissed on 1-11-2001. Feeling aggrieved, he filed F.A.O. No.392 of 2001, which too has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, through the impugned judgment, dated 18-4-2003. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the Vakalat Nama on behalf of the petitioner was filed on 10-10-2000 and the time was secured for applying for leave to defend. The case was taken up on 13-10-2000 but no body turned up from the side of the petitioner. The case was again adjourned for 16-10-2000. Even on the said date none appeared from the petitioner's side. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner were taken ex parte. Whereafter, on 19-10-2000 after recoding the ex parte evidence the suit was decreed. The present petitioner in his application under Order 9, rule 13, C.P.C. had not given any reason for his own absence or that of his learned counsel. He simply stated without advancing any cogent reason that the same was not wilful.
4. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has given cogent reasons while upholding/maintaining the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, decreeing the suit filed by the respondents. In this view of the matter, there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Resultantly, for what has. been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal declined. M.H./J-1/S Petition dismissed.