Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.IX, R.13----Ex parte decree---Setting aside of---No notice was admittedly served upon defendant personally---Counsel who appeared on behalf of defendant and waived Court motion notice, was not. defendant's counsel, for he was not duly appointed by her---Ex parte decree against defendant ought to have been set aside, particularly when non-service of notice and non­ appointment of counsel was specifically pleaded by defendant in her affidavit in support of application for setting aside ex parte decree---Ex parte decree against defendant was not sustainable in circumstances. PLD 1983 SC 693; 1987 CLC 1750; 1480 CLC 242 and 1987 CLC 1177 ref (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XLIII, R:3---Appeal---Failure to serve notice under O.XLIII, R.3, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 on opposite-party before filing appeal---Defect in serving notice before filing of appeal stood cured upon pre-admission notice having been given by First Appellate Court to respondent before admission and hearing of appeal. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Defendant had not been served before passing of ex parte decree--­Defendant's application for setting aside ex parte decree was improperly dismissed and orders passed thereon by Trial Court, as also by Appellate Court were declared to have been passed illegally and with material irregularity and same were set aside---Case was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh, in accordance with law. JUDGMENT This revision application arises out of two orders, one dated. 12-12-1987, passed by the. XII Civil Judge Second Class, Karachi, who dismissed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with section 151, C.P.C. moved by the applicant and the other dated 27-1-1988 passed by first appellate Court of V Additional District Judge (South), Karachi who dismissed Misc. Civil Appeal of the applicant filed against the order dated 12-12-1987 of the trial Court. The facts in brief are that the respondent filed a suit against the applicant for damages on account of malicious prosecution. The case of the respondent in the suit was that the applicant had moved an application against him…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492