Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 794 2013 SLD 794 2013 CLC 1121
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.1078 of 2012, decision dated: 5-12-2012
IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD KHALIL AHMAD

VS

SHABBIR AHMAD

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXVII,Rr.1,2,4,O.IX,R.13,O.V,Rr.6,18, 17,19,O.XXXVI,R.4,O.XLIII,R.1(d),S.115

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXVII,Rr.1,2,4,O.IX,R.13,O.V,Rr.6,18, 17,19,O.XXXVI,R.4,O.XLIII,R.1(d),S.115

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXXVII, Rr. 1, 2, 4, O. IX, R. 13, O. V, Rr. 6, 18 & 19---Suit upon bills of exchange---Ex parte decree, setting aside of ---Setting aside of a decree passed in a suit under provisions of O.XXXVII, C.P.C. ---Scope---"Special circumstances" as used in O.XXXVII, R.4, C.P.C.---Connotation---Suit for recovery of money was decreed ex parte against defendant, and defendant's application for setting aside ex parte decree was dismissed---Contention of the defendant was that there was a defect in the service effected upon the defendant and requirements of O.V, Rr.18 and 19, C.P.C. were not complied with---Validity---Requirements for effecting service upon the defendant had been duly fulfilled in the present case and the reliance of the defendant on O.V, R.19, C.P.C. was misplaced as the examination of serving officer was only required if the summons was returned under O.V, R.17, C.P.C. which provision dealt with the circumstances as to what procedure was to be adopted when the defendant refused to accept service or when he could not be found---Refusal to accept service or non-finding of the defendant did not happen in the present case---Term "special circumstances" as used in O.XXXVI, R.4, C.P.C. was stricter than the terms "good cause" and "sufficient cause" as used in O.IX, R.13, C.P.C. and a person seeking setting aside of ex parte decree passed under O.XXXVII, C.P.C. had to satisfy the court with regards to existence of "special circumstances"---Petitioner, had failed to demonstrate such v special circumstances for setting aside of ex parte decree---Revision was dismissed. Nouroz Khan v. Haji Qadoor 2005 SCMR 1877 and Mehmuda Sultana v. Naseem Mumtaz and another 1990 MLD 1028 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXVII R. 4, O.IX, R.13, O.XLIII, R.1(d) & S.115---Setting aside of ex parte decree passed in a suit under O.XXXVII, C.P.C.---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---In view of provisions of O.XLIII, R.1(d), C.P.C, proceedings culminated under provisions of O.IX R.13, C.P.C. were appealable and any final verdict as had been given under O.XXXVII, R.4, C.P.C. primarily was to be…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492