| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 2084 1992 SLD 2084 1992 PLJ 133 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.500 of 1981, accepted on 18.9.1991. Date of hearing: 18.9.1991.
MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J
Mr. Karamat Nazir Bhandari, Advocate for Petitioner. Mian Hamid Farooq, Advocate for
Respondents.
Civil Revision No.500 of 1981, accepted on 18.9.1991. Date of hearing: 18.9.1991.
MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J
Mr. Karamat Nazir Bhandari, Advocate for Petitioner. Mian Hamid Farooq, Advocate for
Respondents.
Sh. MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUEer
VS
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and another--Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 2
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- —O.XXXVII R.2~Summons in Form No.4 to appear and defend suit-Issuance of~Without waiting for specified time of 10 days, suit decreed ex-parte- Challenge to~Petitioner had a statutory right to seek leave of Court to defend suit within ten days of receipt of summons—Trial Court should have waited for expiration of said period before passing decree against petitioner-This was an unfortunate lapse of trial Court--If trial Court had erred in fixing 30.4.1980 (short date) as next date of hearing, it was its own fault and petitioner should not suffer for it-Held: Trial Court proceeded with undue haste and passed impugned and decree in violation of relevant provisions of law and its own direction embodied in summonds-Petition accepted and case remanded. JUDGMENT This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the respondent, National Bank of Pakistan, Grain Market Branch, Sheikhupura, against the petitioner, Sheikh Muhammad Shafique, for recovery of Rs.19,546.10. The suit, which was heard by an Additional District Judge of Sheikhupura, under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed on 14th April, 1980. On 16th April, 1980 it was directed by the learned Additional District Judge that summons shall issue to the petitioner (who was defendant in the suit) for 30th April, 1980. In the summons sent to the petitioner, it was stated that if he wanted to seek leave to defend the suit, he should make application for that purpose, within 10 days from the date of service of the summons. The petitioner did not appear before the learned Additional District Judge on 30th April, 1980 nor the aforesaid application was submitted by him before that date. It was aoted by the learned Additional District Judge on 30th April, 1980 that service^ the summons had been effected on the petitioner. He, therefore, heard the suit in his absence and decreed the suit ex parte on the same date. This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree thus passed by the learned Additional District Judge. 2. It was inter alia contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court had itself allowed, ten days time…
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