| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 1153 2007 SLD 1153 2007 MLD 985 |
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 566 of 2005, decision Dated: 15-01-2007. Hearing Dated: 20-12-2006.
IJAZ UL HASSAN KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Haider Zaman Shinwari
Respondent(s) by: Syed Mazhir Hussain
Civil Revision No. 566 of 2005, decision Dated: 15-01-2007. Hearing Dated: 20-12-2006.
IJAZ UL HASSAN KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Haider Zaman Shinwari
Respondent(s) by: Syed Mazhir Hussain
SHADEED HUSSAIN
VS
KHADIM ALI
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: S.115,O.VII,IX,R.2,13
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 164,181
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VII, R.2, O.IX, R.13 & S.115---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.181 & 164---Suit for recovery of amount---Ex parte decree, cancellation of---Limitation---Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of---Defendant having remained absent on date fixed for plaintiff's evidence, ex parte decree was passed against defendant---Application for setting aside ex parte decree, supported by an affidavit, filed after about three and half months from passing of ex parte decree, having been accepted, plaintiff had filed appeal which was converted into revision, and was dismissed---Case was remanded to the Trial Court with direction to decide same on merits---Contention of plaintiff was that application for cancellation of ex parte decree, was hopelessly time-barred in terms of Art.164 of Limitation Act, 1908---Validity---Since defendant had appeared in court in response to the summons issued to him and contested the suit and thereafter absented, period of limitation available to him for filing application for setting aside ex parte decree was three years under Art.181 of Limitation Act, 1908 and not 30 days as provided under Art.164 of Limitation Act, 1908---Trial Court had rightly accepted application of defendant for setting aside ex parte decree and Appellate Court below had rightly upheld of the Trial Court---High Court would seldom interfere in concurrent s of two courts below unless and until discretion was exercised arbitrarily---High Court had very limited jurisdiction to interfere in concurrent findings of courts below while exercising jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C., unless and until s of the courts below were the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence or decision of the case was in violation of parameters prescribed by the superior courts. Honda Atlas Cars (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Honda Sarhad (Pvt.) Ltd. and others 2005 SCMR 609; Messrs Rehman Weaving Factory (Regd) Bahawalnagar v. Punjab Small Industries Corporation, Lahore PLD 1981 SC 21 and Water Power Development Authority v. Muhammad Hayat Khan and 7 others PLD 1986 Pesh. 81 rel. (b) Civil Procedure (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High…
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