| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 2653 2013 SLD 2653 2013 YLR 1545 |
Sindh High Court
C.P. No. D-3369 of 2010, decided on 8th November, 2012
MUSHIR ALAM, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J
Nazir Ahmed for Petitioners. Moiz Ahmed for
Respondent No. 1. Adnan Karim Assistant A.G. for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3
C.P. No. D-3369 of 2010, decided on 8th November, 2012
MUSHIR ALAM, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J
Nazir Ahmed for Petitioners. Moiz Ahmed for
Respondent No. 1. Adnan Karim Assistant A.G. for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3
AHMED KHAN
VS
Mst. BILQEES BEGUM and 2 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XVII, R 3 & S. 12(2)---Adjournments---Closing of evidence---Ex parte decree---Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. filed by the defendant for setting aside ex parte decree---Evidence of the plaintiff was closed after he sought successive adjournments and failed to lead evidence---Contention of the plaintiff was that application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. should be decided on merits and he should not be knocked out on technical grounds---Validity----Plaintiff was vigilant while the suit remained uncontested by the defendant however after filing of the application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., plaintiff failed to appear and proceed with the case, particularly with the application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. and he had frequently moved urgent applications including applications for the transfer of the case---Record revealed that the plaintiff had not left a single opportunity to seek an adjournment----Conduct of the plaintiff revealed through dairy sheets, proved that there could not be second opinion about the fact that the plaintiff was avoiding proceedings before Trial Court, and Trial Court had granted enough adjournments to him---Dictates of justice demand that matters should be decided on merits rather than on technical knock outs, however, the plaintiff in the present case, with his frame of mind and conduct, deserved no indulgence and equity---Indulgence was to be granted to those who remained vigilant and not indolent---No illegality existed in the impugned order---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Concurrent findings of fact---Concurrent findings of fact could only be challenged if there was any point of jurisdiction or if the impugned order was wholly void or coram non judice. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J.---Impugned here are the orders dated 27-4-2010 passed by the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi' (East) and 10-11-2010 passed by the Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (East). Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed Suit No. 1292 of 2004 which was decreed ex parte. Subsequently…
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