Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 441 2005 SLD 441 2005 PLD 50
Quetta High Court
Constitutional Petitions Nos.74 and 196 of 2004, decision dated: 2-11-2004, hearing DATE : 27-10-2004
RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE AKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, JUSTICE
Qahir Shah for Petitioner. Iftikhar-ul-Haq for
Respondents.

MUJTABA

VS

RAZIA AND 2 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 5, Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower amount, maintenance allowance and for the custody of the minors against the petitioner/defendant---Ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner/defendant---Defendant, at the time of passing of ex parte decree, was confined in jail---Even in the .civil proceedings, if an order, be it a final or interlocutory, adverse to the interest of any party concerning his rights in personam or in rem had been passed and if such person be in jail, he had to be informed accordingly, through the Superintendent of Jail---No such information, in the present case, was conveyed to the defendant(petitioner) in respect of the impugned decree, therefore, it could not be assumed, in absence of any other material, that he had active knowledge of the ex parte decree passed against him nor even the application submitted before the Appellate Court seeking. condonation of the delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation was contested by the plaintiff by filing counter affidavit, therefore, grounds urged in the application for condonation of delay remained un-rebutted---Such aspect of the case germane to the question of limitation was not attended to by the Appellate Court nor the validity or legality of the impugned decree based upon the proceedings ordered to be taken ex parte, were taken into consideration by the Appellate Court, which consequently rendered its and decree as not sustainable---Order passed by the Family Court whereby the defendant was ordered to be proceeded ex parte was a nullity in the eye of law, void and without jurisdiction---Subsequent proceedings taken in the case and the ex parte decree passed in consequence thereof also were without any legal effect and that being so, made the question of limitation pertaining to the filing of appeal as worthless and to no credence---High Court, set aside the said orders declaring same to be of no legal effect---Suit instituted by plaintiff as ordered to be expeditiously decided as provided by law after hearing…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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