Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 1297 2017 SLD 1297 2017 CLC 1426
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 38404 of 2016, decided on 8th February, 2017.
SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, JUSTICE
Rana Muhammad Anwar for Petitioners. Aftab Hussain Bhatti for
Respondents Nos.1 to 4. Wasim Mumtaz Malik, Addl. Advocate General.

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 2 others

VS

MST. ZARINA AKBAR AND 6 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---.--- ---.----O. IX, R. 13 & O. I, R. 10---.---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.181 & 164---.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---.---Constitutional petition---.---Ex parte decree, setting aside of---.---Limitation---.---Void order---.---Effect---.---Suit was fixed for arguments on the application under O.I, R.10, C. P. C---.---Applicants-defendants did not appear and Trial Court initiated ex parte proceedings against them and passed ex parte decree---.---Application moved for setting aside of ex parte decree was dismissed being time-barred---.---Validity---.---Applicants-defendants joined the proceedings and submitted their written statement---.---Provision of Art.181 instead of Art.164 of Limitation Act, 1908 would attract in the present case---.---Period for filing application for setting aside of ex parte and decree was three years---.---Trial Court had failed to appreciate law on the subject properly---.---Application for setting aside of ex parte and decree was within time---.---Application filed under O.I, R.10, C.P.C. was fixed for arguments when ex parte proceedings were initiated against the applicants-defendants---.---Trial Court ought to have proceeded and decided the said application in absence of applicants rather to initiate ex parte proceedings against them in the suit---.---Said order for initiation of ex parte proceedings and subsequent ex parte and decree could not be said to be legal one rather it was without jurisdiction and void---.---When order was illegal and had been passed in violation of law then High Court had powers to rectify the same while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction---.---When initial order was void and against the mandatory provision of law, then subsequent superstructure could not stand---.---High Court had power to rectify such jurisdictional error---.---Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were declared illegal and void as well as without jurisdiction and were set aside---.---Case was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to decide application under O.I, R.10, C.P.C. on merits---.---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Water and Power…
🔒
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