| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2904 2024 SLD 2904 2024 CLC 563 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.53269 of 2021, decided on 10th May, 2022.Date of hearing: 10th May, 2022.
Before Rasaal Hasan Syed, J
Ch. Muhammad Saeed Gujjar for Petitioner. Ch. M. Naseer Gujjar for
Respondents.
Writ Petition No.53269 of 2021, decided on 10th May, 2022.Date of hearing: 10th May, 2022.
Before Rasaal Hasan Syed, J
Ch. Muhammad Saeed Gujjar for Petitioner. Ch. M. Naseer Gujjar for
Respondents.
Rana KARAMAT----Petitioner
VERSUS
FARHAN HAIDER and 6 others----Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 7
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 181
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. IX, R. 7---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181---Ex-parte proceeding, setting aside of---Limitation---Respondents instituted suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the petitioner, claiming ownership of two plots---Petitioner filed written statement wherein facts were controverted and counter legal and factual objections were raised---At the stage when the suit was fixed for evidence of respondents the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte on 17.10.2019 and the case was adjourned for ex-parte statement and proof of respondents---Petitioner moved an application dated 13.02.2020 for setting aside ex parte proceedings, which was dismissed being time barred---Petitioner filed civil revision before Appellant Court, which too was dismissed---Validity---As regarding "sufficient reasons" for setting aside of the ex parte proceedings order, the courts below rightly observed that the petitioner did not prove the existence of any "good cause" to set aside the ex parte proceeding order. Plea taken was that the petitioner was seriously indisposed and could not appear in court on the fixed date---In law the petitioner was supposed to explain his own non-appearance as also the non-appearance of his counsel who used to represent him in the suit---If the petitioner was indisposed, his counsel could have appeared in the court and informed about the illness of petitioner---No explanation was given for the non-appearance of counsel, nor any medical certificate was produced to support the plea of illness or to prove the time during which he allegedly remained indisposed---Courts below had rightly observed that no "sufficient ground" was made out for setting aside the ex parte order---There was another aspect of the matter which was overlooked by the trial court as well the revisional Court---It was not a case in which an ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner; rather it was an instance in which ex parte proceedings order simpliciter had been made and the petitioner joined the proceedings at the stage of evidence by filing an application for setting aside of ex parte proceedings order against him---It has…
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