2017 PLP 900 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD AYUB — Appellant Versus Dr. SIKANDAR HAYAT — Respondent
| Citation | 2017 PLP 900 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Sahib Khan, C J and Muhammad Alam, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AYUB — Appellant Versus Dr. SIKANDAR HAYAT — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 900 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 900 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Sahib Khan, C J and Muhammad Alam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 900 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD AYUB — Appellant Versus Dr. SIKANDAR HAYAT — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mir Akhlaque Hussain for Appellant.
- Amjad Hussain for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
O. IX, R. 13
Ex parte decree, setting aside of
Petition for setting aside of ex parte decree was filed after one and six months of passing the same
Applicant appeared in the execution proceedings of the decree but after about four months of his appearance present application had been filed
Applicant did not seem to be interested in the progress of case, petition for setting aside of ex parte decree being time barred was not allowed
Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.
This is civil first appeal against order dated 02.05.2012 of the learned trial Court, whereby, petition of appellant/defendant that he filed under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. was dismissed holding the same time barred.
2. Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit, Civil Suit No.17/08, in the court of Civil Judge Skardu, who through his order/decree dated 24-04-2009, passed an ex-parte decree. From perusal of record, it is evident that the suit was filed on 15-03-2008 and ex-parte decree was passed on 24-04-2009. Respondent filed execution proceedings on 27-05-2010, and during the said proceedings, appellant appeared on 26-06-2010 but filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. on 23-10-2010. Learned trial court suspended the execution proceedings and heard parties on petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. On 02-05-2012, learned trial court dismissed the said petition holding that the same is time barred. Feeling aggrieved from the same, appellant filed this appeal. So, the only ground for determination is the question of limitation in filing this appeal as well as the petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C.
3. Before passing ex-parte decree, learned trial court passed ex-parte proceedings. The appellant filed the petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C., on 23-10-2010 (C.Misc. No.54/2010) while ex parte decree has been passed on 24-04-2009, after publication of summons under Order V, Rule 20, C.P.C. in newspaper Daily Nawa-e-Waqt, Rawalpindi dated 02-04-2009. This shows that appellant filed the petition under Order XI Rule 13, C.P.C. after one (1) year and six (6) months of the ex-parte decree. File further shows that the appellant appeared in the court on 26-06-2010 in connection with execution proceedings of the decree dated 24-04-2009 and filed the petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. on 23-10-2010, i.e., after about 4 months of his appearance in the court. This kind of conduct of the appellant is a clear manifestation of disinterest in the progress of the case. Appellant not only turned a deaf ear towards the proceedings of the trial court in connection with service of summons but also remained silent for long about four (4) months after his appearing in the court and then filed the petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. So, the petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. of the appellant was rightly held time barred by the trial court.
4. Therefore, appeal in hand is dismissed holding that the same is meritless and impugned order is correct. Appellant to bear costs. This file be consigned to record. ZC/70/GB Appeal dismissed.