Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 17 2018 SLD 17 2018 PLJ 1
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 977 of 2017, heard on 1.8.2017. Date of hearing: 1.8.2017.
ABDUL RAHMAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Hafiz Muhammad Riaz, Advocate for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.

KAREEM BAKHSH

VS

ASLAM KHAN

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXVII,R.4,O.IXR.13

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 159,164

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----O.XXXVII, R. 4 & O.IX R. 13--Negotiable Instruments Act, (XXVI of 1881)--Limitation Act, 1908, Arts. 159 & 164--Suit for recovery--Promissory note and receipt--Exparte proceedings--Decreed--Application for setting aside exparte decree--Leave to defend dismissed for non-prosecution--Application for restoration--Dismissed--Challenge to--Validity--There is mark difference for the procedure of setting aside exparte and decree for ordinary suit and the suit field under provisions of Order XXXVII, CPC--Decree may be set-aside under Order XXXVII, Rule 4, CPC upon application of defendant showing "Sepcial circumstances" of his inability to appear and obtain leave within prescribed period i.e. within 10 days under Article 159 of Limitation Act, 1908--It is case of wilfull disappearance of petitioner during pendency of proceedings--When petitioner was perusing his case diligently, then it was his responsibility to take all necessary steps and measures for further pursuance--Meaning thereby that petitioner was in absolute knowledge hence, he would face consequence of his non-appearance--Petitioner try to rejoin proceedings by filing an application on 22.9.15 after the delay of more than two years and five months for which no plausible justification put forth by petitioner--It is also not out of place to mention here that when petitioner having conscious knowledge of delay of more than two years and five months than it is also obligatory for him to explain delay of each and every day, but no application for condonation of delay was even filed by petitioner which manifestly shows that he wants to avoid implementation of decree--Therefore in such circumstances petitioner is not entitled for any discretionary relief against which also a valuable right accused to respondent--Civil revision dismissed. JUDGMENT Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 22.05.2017 whereby the application for setting-aside exparte judgment and decree dated 07.02.2013 was dismissed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the above revision petition are that Aslam Khan respondent (herein after to be referred as…
🔒
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