1991 PLP 1337 (SCMR)
RAMZAN and another — Petitioners Versus SULTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1337 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Aztal Zullah |
| Parties | RAMZAN and another — Petitioners Versus SULTAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1337 (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 1991 PLP 1337 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Aztal Zullah.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1337 (SCMR) (RAMZAN and another — Petitioners Versus SULTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Hamid-ud-Din, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th June, 1989.
- Ch. Hamid‑ud‑Din, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 21-1-1986, passed in Misc. Petition No.156 of 1986).
O. IX, R. 13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Ex parte judgment, setting aside of
Petitioners despite having been served in accordance with rules and practice; failed to appear on due date although post-cards were also issued to them on their proper addresses
Case was however decided by High Court on merit in spite of petitioners' absence and in view of ex parte proceedings against them
Case, thus was not fit for consideration by Supreme Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑O. IX, R. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Ex parte judgment, setting aside of‑‑‑Petitioners despite having been served in accordance with rules and practice; failed to appear on due date although post‑cards were also issued to them on their proper addresses‑‑‑Case was however decided by High Court on merit in spite of petitioners' absence and in view of ex parte proceedings against them‑‑‑Case, thus was not fit for consideration by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Ch. Hamid‑ud‑Din, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th June, 1989. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the order dated 21‑1‑1986 of the Lahore High Court, passed in Misc. Petition No.156 of 1986 for setting aside of an ex parte judgment in Writ Petition No.562‑R"of 1977 passed in favour of respondent No.l, was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Sultan respondent No.l filed a writ petition against his two brothers Ramzan and Shafi Muhammad petitioners wherein he challenged the order of Consolidation Officer and the consequent Mutation No.88 dated 12‑5‑1976, excluding his name from the allotment of agricultural land under border allotment scheme. The writ petition came for hearing on 2‑11‑1985 before a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The petitioners after having been served were absent on the day of hearing and the writ petition proceeded ex parte which was allowed, vide order dated 2‑11‑1985. An application under Order IX, Rule 13 read with section 151 of the C.P.C. was made on the ground that no post‑card was issued or surumons were served on the applicants. It is a matter of record that the petitioners having earlier been served in accordance with the rules and practice even then they did not appear on due date although post‑cards were also issued to them on their proper addresses by the office. In spite of their absence and in view of the ex parte proceedings, the case was decided on merit by the High Court. The Miscellaneous application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge after having gone through the case and discussed once again the merit of the case. Under the circumstances and facts of the case we do not think it is a 6t case for consideration of this Court, The petition accordingly, is dismissed. H.B.T./R‑121/S Petition dismissed.