1989 PLP 1998 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AZIM and 2 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1998 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AZIM and 2 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1998 (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 1989 PLP 1998 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1998 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AZIM and 2 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 5th February, 1985 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.121S5‑D of 1984). ‑‑‑O.IX, R.13‑‑Ex parte decree, setting aside of‑‑Personal service on respondents by the process‑server was disputed‑‑Petitioners had not examined process‑server as a witness despite respondents had made deposition on oath with regard to non -service‑‑Deposition on oath by the respondents had remained un-controverter‑ High Court resolved the question by relying on deposition of respondents on their pica that their evidence should he accepted‑‑Appraisal by the High Court, did not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Moniruddin Ahmad v. Shamsuddin Ahmad 19X,9 S C M R 873 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs' side, against the acceptance by the High Court, of a Civil Revision filed by the respondents/defendants' side. Suit of the petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest for declaration, was decreed ex parte. The respondents' application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed by the trial Court. The appeal tiled against the order of the trial Court was also dismissed. Their Revision, however, was allowed by the High Court; mainly, on the ground that there was dispute on the question of personal service on the respondents' side by the process server. He was not examined by the petitioner s side as a witness despite deposition on Oath made on respondent side with regard to non‑service. They thus tried to rebut the presumption in favour of service. It was also held by the High Court that the deposition on Oath by respondents' side remained unconlroverted from the petitioners' side. In the circumstances of this case, therefore, it was held that in so far as the appreciation of evidence was concerned the onus of service having, during the trial, shifted on the petitioners' side, remained undischarged. We have heard the learned counsel at length. He has relied on some judgments of the High Court and a judgment of the Supreme Court. It is Moniruddin Ahmad versus Shamsuddin Ahmad' 1969 S C M R
873. These case are d1stinguishable from this case. The deposition of the respondents' side having been relied upon, the question has been resolved by the High Court on the respondents' plea that their evidence should be accepted as reliable as against the petitioners' evidence. The appraisal in this behalf by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise. This petition, therefore, is dismissed. M.A.K./M‑986/S Petition dismissed.