1985 PLP 1729 (SCMR)
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, LAHORE — Petitioner Versus Sh. MUHAMMAD YOUNAS — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1729 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | DEVELOPMENT BOARD, LAHORE — Petitioner Versus Sh. MUHAMMAD YOUNAS — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1729 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1729 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1729 (SCMR) (DEVELOPMENT BOARD, LAHORE — Petitioner Versus Sh. MUHAMMAD YOUNAS — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Arif, Advocate-General Punjab instructed by S. Ijaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Salim Ahmad Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1985.
- Muhammad Arif, Advocate‑General Punjab instructed by S. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Salim Ahmad Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 21-11-1979 in F.A.O. No.217 of 1979).
Art. 185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, rr. 613--Setting aside of ex parte decree--Application dismissed by trial Court and appeal dismissed by High Court while cross objection by respondents succeeded--Leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court for authoritative pronouncement as to competency of petitioner's application for setting aside ex parte decree, manner in which service of notice was effected, absence of any record of receipts in registered office of petitioner (Punjab Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Development Board), nature of claim made and absence of exercise and application of judicial mind of Court while acting under O. IX, r. 6, C.P.C. Toor Gul v. Mst. Mumtaz Begum P L D 1972 S C 9; Ismail and another v. Mst. Razia Begum and 3 others 1981 SCMR 687 and Messrs Nabi Bakhsh and Sons v . Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Natural Resources P L D 1969 Kar. 210 ref.
Judgment & Decree
S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Salim Ahmad Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1985. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J‑‑The defendant, a statutory Corporation, seeks by this petition leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 21‑11‑1979 whereby its appeal against the refusal of its application to set aside an ex parte decree was dismissed. The plaintiff‑respondent on ' 30‑5‑1978 instituted a civil suit claiming recovery of Rs.10,14,144118 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi. The Court ordered service of notice by registered post for 18‑6‑1978. None appeared for the petitioner on that date and on the same date the Court decreed the claim. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed on 24‑6‑1978 which the respondent contested and was dismissed by the trial Court. The appeal against it failed and the cross‑objection filed by the respondent succeeded. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contented that the finding of the High Court that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was not competently filed is not supportable in law in view of the decisions in Toor Gul v. Mat. Mumtaz Begum P L D 1972 S C 9, Ismail and another v. Mst. Razia Begum and 3 others 1981 S C M R 687 and Messrs Nabi Bakhsh 3 Sons v. Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Natural Resources PLD 1969 Kar. 210. As regards the sufficiency of the grounds the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the manner in which service of the notice was effected, the absence of any record of its receipts in the registered office of the petitioner, and the nature of the claim made and the absence of exercise and application of judicial mind of the Court while acting under Order IX, rule 6, C.P.C. This is a case of first impression in which leave to appeal is granted for an authoritative pronouncement on the subject. The appeal shall be made ready on present record for hearing. The decretal amount shall be invested within two months in Khas Deposit Certificates by the petitioner for the benefit of successful litigant. On this being done, the execution proceedings shall be stayed. A.A.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.