Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 1620 2018 SLD 1620 2018 CLC 994
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 28129 of 2017, decided on 13-11-2017. Date of hearing: 23-10-2017.
MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, JUSTICE
Asim Hafeez for Petitioner. Muhammad Umar Malik for
Respondent No.1.

MESSRS EXPEDITOR INTERNATIONAL PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD.

VS

MESSRS SITARA TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND 2 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. IX, R. 13 & O. VII, R. 2---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 164---Money suit---Application for setting aside decree---Limitation--- Condonation of delay--- "Sufficient cause"--- Scope---Defendant after filing written statement did not appear and suit was ex-parte decreed---Contention of defendant was that his counsel did not inform him with regard to ex-parte proceedings and decree---Petition for setting aside of ex-parte decree was dismissed being time barred---Validity---Application for condonation of delay was to be considered with due care and caution---Petition for setting aside of ex-parte decree was moved after two years from passing the said decree and four years from ex-parte proceedings---Valuable right had accrued in favour of respondent-plaintiff as role of limitation could not be ignored---Petitioner-defendant should have applied to set aside the ex-parte decree within thirty days from the date of passing of ex-parte order or at the most from ex parte decree---Petitioner-defendant after joining the proceedings absented himself for a long period of more than four years---Petitioner-defendant was bound by the Court proceedings and he should have pursued the lis lodged against him---Applicant-defendant did not contact the counsel so as to know the stage and progress of the case---Petitioner-defendant was required to explain each and every day of his absence beyond thirty days in a justifiable manner---Defendant was not entitled to count limitation from the date "when he acquired knowledge" of ex-parte decree---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 76---Secondary evidence, production of---Requirement---Fact regarding loss of original document was required to be proved before leading secondary evidence and by not doing so even if secondary evidence was produced then it would become valueless vitiating all the proceedings built on such secondary evidence. (c) Administration of justice--- ----Law helps vigilant and not the indolent. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J.--- This revision petition calls-in-question the legality and validity…
🔒
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