Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 96(2), O. VIII, R. 10 & O. IX, R. 7---Ex parte decree against Government---Striking off defence of defendant for non-filing of written statement---Order of ex parte proceedings against defendant for his non-appearance and recording of plaintiff's evidence ex parte---Dismissal of defendant's application for setting aside order of ex parte proceeding on ground of non-prosecution---Passing of ex parte decree by Trial Court after hearing ex parte arguments of plaintiff---Dismissal of defendant's appeal by Appellate Court---Validity---Courts below in view of such conduct of defendant had rightly refused to exercise jurisdiction in his favour---Record showed that defendant-Official from the very beginning had never been interested in offering any reasonable and serious opposition to plaintiff's claim---Defendant-Official and his counsel on many occasions had been found absent by Trial Court without any lawful excuse---Defendant and his counsel had not availed opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses, but had let their depositions to go unchallenged---Such attitude of defendant-Official was indicative of collusive delinquency on his part---Obvious reason of such disinterested attitude and delinquency was that defendant-official knew that in case suit decreed, then decretal amount would not be recovered from his personal pocket, rather same would be recovered from national exchequer---Agreeing of defendant during execution proceedings to make payment of decretal amount made clear that defendant had no doubt about genuineness of plaintiffs claim---Defendant-official had facilitated grant of impugned decree for huge amount--Defendant was not prevented from attending court proceedings by any sufficient cause beyond his control---Courts below were not bereft of jurisdiction to pass the impugned decree--High Court dismissed revision petition with direction to send copy of its to concerned Provincial Secretary and Minister to prevent such events from occurring in future. Farzand Raza Naqvi and 5 others v. Muhammad Din through legal heirs and others 2004 SCMR 400 distinguished. JUDGMENT ZIA-UR-RAHMAN KHAN, J.---With the…

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