| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 3218 1970 SLD 3218 = 1970 SCMR 885 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 27-D of 1970, decided on 18th June 1970.
Presented By: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and M. R. Khan, J
M. Nurullah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Aminul Huq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 27-D of 1970, decided on 18th June 1970.
Presented By: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and M. R. Khan, J
M. Nurullah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Aminul Huq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
IBRAHIM KHALIL-Petitioner
VERSUS
SAMIUDDIN AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 145
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 10th March 1970, in Criminal Revision No. 227 of 1969). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 145-Dispute as to possession of immovable property-Ex parte proceeding- Petitioner having notices of dates of hearing avoiding appearance in Court and failing to cross-examine witnesses produced by other party-Peti tioner's application seeking permission to cross-examine other party's witnesses and to produce evidence on his own behalf, having been filed after passing of final order by Court, held, rightly rejected Petitioner's only remedy lay in filing civil suit. Date of hearing : 18th June 1970. JUDGMENT HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-At the instance of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 herein an ex parte proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was drawn up on the 10th of November 1961, against the petitioner and seven others anti show-cause notices were issued on them. The land was attached and a Receiver was appointed. The petitioner filed his written statement on 19th March 1965, but the case somehow dragged on till the 10th of October 1968, when three witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner had notice of this date but did not appear even though there was an earlier order that the case would proceed ex parse in his absence. He allowed the evidence of these witnesses to go unchallenged. The case was then adjourned to 26th October 1968, but again the petitioner did not appear and the Magistrate passed a final order declaring the possession of the said respondents and discharging the receiver appointed earlier. After the passing of the order the petitioner appeared and filed a petition for permission to cross-examine the witnesses and to adduct' evidence on his behalf, but as the Magistrate bad already passed the final order, he rejected this petition stating that he had already passed the final order. The petitioner then moved the Sessions Judge, Chittagong, under sections 435 and 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requesting him to make a reference to the High Court for…