Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 2007 2025 SLD 2007
Islamabad High Court
F.A.O.No.46 of 2016
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB
      Date of Hearing:           06.07.2017                                        Appellants by:             Mr. Gul Hussain Jadoon, Advocate.                                       
Respondent by:            Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Ramay, Advocate.

Islah-ud-Din Chaudhry and another

VERSUS

Muhammad Zahid Abbasi

Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT SHEET                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       MIANGUL        HASSAN        AURANGZEB,        J:-        Through

F.A.O.No.46/2016, the appellants, impugn (i) the order dated 10.09.2014 passed by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad, (whereby the appellants were proceeded against ex-parte) (ii) order dated 14.04.2016, (whereby the appellants’ application for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated 25.05.2015, was dismissed), and (iii) ex-parte judgment and decree dated 25.05.2015. Through the said ex-parte judgment and decree, the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, decreed Civil Suit No.53/2014, instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“C.P.C.”) by the respondent (Muhammad Zahid Abbasi) against the appellants for the recovery of Rs.25,000,000/- (Rupees twenty five million) before the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad. 

2.    Mr. Gul Hussain Jadoon, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent is the brother of appellant No.2’s brother-in-law (Behnoi); that the appellants reside in the United States, and visit Pakistan from time to time; that whenever the appellants' visit Pakistan they reside at appellant No.2’s sister’s house i.e. House No.10, Street No.41, F-8/1, Islamabad; that appellant No.2’s sister, (Saeeda) died on 21.02.2014; that after Saeeda’s demise, the relations between the appellants and the respondent’s brother turned sour; that since Saeeda was issueless, the respondent’s brother was not her sole legal heir; that appellant No.2 also had a share in Saeeda’s property; and that the respondent’s brother tried to transfer Saeeda’s immoveable properties in his own name without appellant No.2’s consent. 

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register