| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 2162 2013 SLD 2162 2013 YLR 59 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2009, decided on 22nd March, 2011. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court, dated 30-5-2009 in Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2007). DATE of hearing: 21st March, 2011
KHAWAJA SHAHAD AHMED, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, J
Sardar Muhammad Azam Khan, Advocate for Appellants. Sardar Ghulam Mustafa, Advocate for
Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2009, decided on 22nd March, 2011. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court, dated 30-5-2009 in Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2007). DATE of hearing: 21st March, 2011
KHAWAJA SHAHAD AHMED, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, J
Sardar Muhammad Azam Khan, Advocate for Appellants. Sardar Ghulam Mustafa, Advocate for
Respondents
ISRAR QURESHI and 9 others
VS
Mst. ZAINAB BIBI and 2 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act (1993 B.K.)-- ----Ss. 6 & 14---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.13---Suit for pre-emption---Application for setting aside ex parte and decree---Scope---Ex parte proceedings were ordered against the defendant as defendant and his counsel remained absent---Application for setting aside ex parte and decree, was dismissed by the Trial Court, Appellate Court below and even by the High Court---Sufficient cause was to be placed on record to get a favourable order from the court where a party absented itself---Court had to examine the facts of each case---Defendants, despite several opportunities, failed to produce their evidence; and even could not support their contention before the Trial Court when they were allowed last opportunity on payment of costs---Stand, that defendant and his counsel had gone abroad, was not in itself a sufficient ground to justify their absence---One who knocked the door of the court or appeared before the court, he must in all cases be vigilant and assisting the further process by the court---Litigant, could be in whatever position before the court, was required to remain vigilant and could not procrastinate or hamper the proceedings before a court of law by absenting himself or negotiating any method hampering the final decision of a case brought before a court of law---Concurrent findings of the courts below could not be interfered with in appeal before the Supreme Court--Appeal was dismissed. PLD 2004 SC (AJ&K) 20; 2005 SCR 430; 2006 SCMR 185 and 2008 SCR 300 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XX, R.5---Decision of the court---Scope---Where issues had been framed in a suit, the court in the absence of a valid reason with codal backing had to record findings on all issues, but that requirement would lose its force when the court was of the opinion and came to the conclusion that the controversy brought before it could be settled by recording findings on one or more of the issues. JUDGMENT KHAWAJA SHAHAD AHMED, C.J.---The captioned appeal is addressed against a judgment recorded by a learned Judge of the High Court on 30-9-2009 whereby second appeal…
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