Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 144, 151,12(2),IX

Summary The Supreme Court dismissed the appellants’ appeal against the restoration of possession in favour of the respondent. Although the appellants alleged that the respondent had obtained an ex parte order through fraud by impleading a non-entity, the Court held that the challenge was hopelessly time-barred and that the appellants had failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay. The record showed that the appellants had repeatedly been served, participated in earlier proceedings, avoided appearances, and failed to pursue their remedies diligently. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were therefore upheld, and exemplary costs of Rs. 200,000 were imposed on the appellants. Core Points The respondent had initially obtained possession of the property through execution of a lawful ejectment order. The appellants allegedly re-entered the property and dispossessed the respondent. The respondent sought restoration of possession under Sections 144 and 151, C.P.C. The Rent Court passed an ex parte order dated 15.05.2014 directing restoration of possession to the respondent. The appellants claimed that they learned of the order on 02.07.2014 and challenged it under Section 12(2), C.P.C. Their application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. was dismissed on 24.07.2014. The appeal against that dismissal was filed beyond the limitation period. The appellants failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Court found that the appellants had repeatedly avoided court proceedings despite service of notices. The appellants had earlier participated in related litigation and could not establish lack of knowledge. The allegations of fraud and proceedings against a non-entity did not justify overlooking the unexplained delay. The leave-granting order only required closer examination of the record; it was not a decision on the merits. The appeal was dismissed and the judgments of the Lahore High Court and subordinate courts were affirmed. Costs of Rs. 200,000 were imposed, recoverable as arrears of land revenue if unpaid within thirty days. The Court emphasized that rent proceedings should remain summary, expeditious and free from dilatory…