Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 6, 9

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi dated the 4th June 1969, in Revision Application No. 64 of 1966). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, rr. 6 & 9-Suit decreed ex parte after ordering ex parte proceeding due to non appearance of defendant-At time of passing ex parte decree counsel for defendant appearing and praying to be heard on preliminary issue in suit that same was not maintainable-Prayer refused but sub sequently on application under O. IX, r. 13 Court setting aside ex parte decree-Order setting aside ex parte decree, in circumstance, held, not illegal-Contention that ex parte decree could not be set aside without first setting aside ex parte proceeding-Held: rules of procedure laid down in C. P. C. not intended for retarding justice on bare technicalities. Date of hearing : 26th January 1970. JUDGMENT SAMAD AHMAD, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the decision of a Division Bench of the High. Court of West Pakistan (Karachi Seat) made in revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, refusing to interfere with the order of the Second Civil Judge, First Class, Karachi, whereby an ex parte decree earlier granted by him to the petitioner (Messrs Landhi Industrial Trading Estates Ltd. Karachi) against the respondent (Government of West Pakistan) was set aside. The ex parte decree aforesaid was obtained by the petitioner in a suit which it had filed against the Karachi Development Authority and the Government of West Pakistan, defendants 1 and 2, respectively, on the 20th of May 1964, for a declaration that it was immune from imposition of tax under the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from recovering the same. According to the Court diary (copy-on-record, Exh. G) the order recorded on the 30th of may 1964, shows that defendant No. 1 was unserved by that day but defendant No. 2 was absent in spite of service. It further appears that defendant No. 2 remained absent throughout until the ex parte decree was awarded against it on 24-11-1964, when simultaneously the…