Converting of proceedings

2025 PLC(CS) 1388 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Arts. 199 & 204Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151AppointmentDefying order of CourtContempt proceedingsConverting of proceedingsNon-compliance of orders passed by Division Bench of High Court

Petitioner / applicant sought his appointment against quota under son of employee scheme for the post of Constable in police

Grievance of petitioner / applicant was that despite being declared fit in physical test and also succeeding in the written test, he was not selected

Division Bench of High Court in exercise of Constitution jurisdiction directed the authorities to appoint petitioner / applicant

Contempt proceedings were initiated by petitioner / applicant against alleged contemnors for deliberately violating and defying the order passed by Division Bench of High Court

Validity

Division Bench of High Court converted contempt application into an application under S. 151, C.P.C. and directed respondents to appoint petitioner / applicant to the post of Constable or to any other equivalent post

Division Bench of High Court expected that authorities would issue appointment letter to petitioner / applicant expeditiously, as he had been running from pillar to post for his right for a long time

Division Bench of High Court clarified that if the needful was not done within the stipulated period, it would be deemed to be defiance of Court's order within the meaning of Art. 204 of the Constitution

Application allowed accordingly.

2015 CLC 1734 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9, 10 & 22Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionRecovery of bank loanService of processProofEx parte order, setting aside ofConverting of proceedings

Suit filed by bank against defendant was decreed ex parte on the ground that process was issued according to all prescribed modes and he failed to appear before Banking Court

Validity

Summonses sent to defendant through courier service were returned with the remarks that defendant had shifted from address at which summonses were sent

Summonses to defendant were sent through ordinary registered post instead of sending the same through registered post acknowledgement due, due to which there was nothing on record to show that summonses were duly served upon him or he had refused to receive the same

Bailiff did not submit his report nor was there any report by him available on record to show that summonses had received by defendant or he refused to receive the same

No evidence was available on record to show refusal on the part of defendant, or non-service or proper service of summonses upon him

By not sending summonses through registered post acknowledgement due as specifically provided in S.9(5) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, mandatory compliance was not made

By passing ex parte order against defendant, despite such non-compliance, Banking Court committed a grave illegality

Summonses were not issued in accordance with S.9(5) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, defendant was not served and service upon him was never held good

Without first holding service good upon defendant, no further proceedings could be taken in suit nor any adverse order could be passed against him

Ex parte order passed against defendant was not sustainable and was liable to be struck down/set aside and application for leave to defend was within time

High Court converted appeals into Constitutional petitions, ex parte order passed by Banking Court against defendant was declared illegal and without jurisdiction and was set aside

High Court directed the Banking Court to decide application for leave to defend in accordance with law

Petition was allowed accordingly.

2014 CLD 1548 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.9, 10 & 22Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionRecovery of bank loanService of processProofEx parte order, setting aside ofConverting of proceedings

Suit filed by bank against defendant was decreed ex parte on the ground that process was issued according to all prescribed modes and he failed to appear before Banking Court

Validity

Summons sent to defendant through courier service was returned with the remarks that defendant had shifted from address at which summons was sent

Summons to defendant was sent through ordinary registered post instead of sending the same through registered post acknowledgement due, due to which there was nothing on record to show that summons was duly served upon him or he had refused to receive the same

Bailiff did not submit his report nor was there any report by him available on record to show that summons had received by defendant or he refused to receive the same

No evidence was available on record to show refusal on the part of defendant, or non-service or proper service of summons upon him

By not sending summons through registered post acknowledgement due as specifically provided in S.9(5) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, mandatory compliance was not made

By passing ex parte order against defendant, despite such non-compliance, Banking Court committed a grave illegality

Summons was not issued in accordance with S.9(5) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, defendant was not served and service upon him was never held good

Without first holding service good upon defendant, no further proceedings could be taken in suit nor any adverse order could be passed against him

Ex parte order passed against defendant was not sustainable and was liable to be struck down/set aside and application for leave to defend was within time

High Court converted appeals into Constitutional petitions, ex parte order passed by Banking Court against defendant was declared illegal and without jurisdiction and was set aside

High Court directed the Banking Court to decide application for leave to defend in accordance with law

Petition was allowed accordingly.