Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.IX,R.13,O.XLIII,R.1,O.V,20(2),S.12(2), 151

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.IX,R.13,O.XLIII,R.1,O.V,20(2),S.12(2), 151

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 164

a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. IX, R.13 & O. V, R.20---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.164---Trial Court decreed the suit for recovery and damages ex parte---Defendants filed application for setting aside the ex parte decree which was dismissed by the Trial Court---Defendants contended that plaintiff committed fraud and misrepresentation by procuring the effecting of service of summons in a less prominent newspaper preventing them from having knowledge of the ex parte decree which they came to know about through notice of the Executing Court which issued the order of attachment of their property---Defendants, thus, sought retrial and decision of the case on merits---Validity---Record revealed that defendants mentioned the same address as in the present case- in litigation pending between the parties before the court in another city---Defendants filed suits against plaintiff in said other city which showed that they were fully aware of the decree and order of the Trial Court against them and knowingly filed application for setting aside the ex parte decree with considerable delay---Under Art.164 of the Limitation Act, 1908, where summons was not served properly, limitation would run from the date from which applicant came to know about the decree---Record evidently established that defendants tried to impede the proceeding pending for execution in said other city---Defendants could not establish misrepresentation as fraud, therefore, case could not be remanded to Trial Court which had correctly assessed the material and arrived at right conclusion---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Art. 164---Limitation---Under Art. 164 of the Limitation Act, 1908, where summons was not served properly, limitation would run from the time when applicant came to know about the decree. Mian Badar Munir for Appellants. Shaukat Rakhshani for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th May, 2010. JUDGMENT MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J.---It is case of the appellants that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.7,13,538 and Rs.5,001,000 as damages against their predecessor Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Saleem appellant No.1,…

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