Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 13 , 115 , 6

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.IX, R.13---Ex parte-decree---Setting aside of---Where a party to the case after having participated in proceedings, remained absent not on one hearing, but for six long months, no justification appeared to allow cause to be lingered on and that as and when delinquent party felt like, it would be set aside---Law helps vigilant litigants and not those who are indifferent or resort to abuse of process of Court. Messrs Raheem Steel Re-Rolling Mills and 4 others v. Messrs Karim Aziz Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 1988 C L C 654 and Muhammad Aslam v. Nighat Sultana 1988 CLC 1873 ref. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115 & O.IX, Rr.6 & 13---Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of---Concurrent orders of two Courts below dismissing application of defendant /petitioner for setting aside ex parte decree against him, not shown to be suffering from any error of law or jurisdictional defect, were unexceptionable and could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of High Court. Muhammad Hassan Khan for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 2nd October, 1991. JUDGMENT A suit for recovery of Rs.15,000 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-petitioner on the foot of pronote, photo copy Exh.P.W.l/1 and agreement Exh.P.W.l/2. The defendant-petitioner appeared on 21-5-1989 and filed written statement wherein he challenged the propriety of the receipt and the pronote and dubbed them as fictitious and forged. After striking the issues the parties filed lists of witnesses. The entire evidence of the plaintiff-respondent was recorded on 30-10-1989. The plaintiff-respondent, apart from this testimony, proved the execution of the pronote and receipt and agreement deed, photo copies Exh.P.W.1/1 and Exh.P.W. 1/2 respectively by examining S. Muqadar Shah, Deed Writer (P.W.1) Hamayum Khan and Syed Jamhoor Shah (P.Ws.2 and 3) who stated that a sum of Rs.15,000 was paid in their presence by the   plaintiff-respondent to the defendant-petitioner in token whereof the latter had put his thumb-impression thereon. The four P.Ws.were also cross-examined but nothing seemed to have come to surface to prove the plea of the…