| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLG 1665 1991 SLD 1665 1991 CLC 291 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1185 of 1989, heard on 25th April, 1990
MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J
Khan Yunus Khan for Petitioners. Mian Ahmad Sher Lali for
Respondents
Civil Revision No. 1185 of 1989, heard on 25th April, 1990
MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J
Khan Yunus Khan for Petitioners. Mian Ahmad Sher Lali for
Respondents
FAZAL BIBI and others
VS
ABDUL HAO and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.24-A (2)---High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vo1.1, Chap 13, para. 6--Transfer of suit by an administrative order---Duty of Court---Notice to parties---Parties to a suit are entitled to notice by the Court from which it was transferred-Notwithstanding the order for ex parte proceedings defendants continued to be parties to the suit and must have been intimated by the transferee Court about the date of hearing of the suit. Krishen Lal Malhotra v. Madan Lai and 2 others P L D 1950 Lah. 82; P L D 1962 (W.P) Lah. 1041 and P L D 1989 Lah. 255 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.IX, Rr. 6 & 7---After an ex parte proceedings the Court cannot treat the defendant as if he was no longer a party to the suit. After an order for ex parte proceedings the Court cannot treat the defendant as if he was no longer a party to the suit. A defendant by his failure to appear at one stage of the hearing in the case does not become an outlaw. He is still a party to the litigation; the evidence is led against him and the decree is ultimately passed against him. He can appeal from the decree or take other appropriate steps to ensure that every thing was done in his presence. Logic and common sense too are in favour of this view. In the present case, without issuing any notice to the petitioners, the trial Court proceeded to pass an ex parte decree. The petitioners were entitled to join the proceedings and address arguments on the basis of the material available on the record. Even this opportunity was denied to the petitioners. Such order was set aside in revision by the High Court and case was remanded to trial Court. JUDGMENT This revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration filed by Abdul Haq, respondent No.1, on 27-9-1983, in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha. The suit was decreed ex parte by the trial Court on 1-7-1986. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, on 11-4-1989. 2. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners did not file any written statement. However, they filed an application under Order VII Rule 11. of the C.P.C on…
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