Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 373 of 1967, decided on 12th October 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 13th June 1967, in Civil Revision No. 112 of 1965).
. IX, r. 9‑Ex parte decree set aside on adequate evidence that there was sufficient reason for non‑appearance‑High Court, held, right in refusing to‑ interfere with order‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Raja Afrasiab Khan, Advocate Supreme Court‑ instructed by Masud Akhter, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing :12th October 1967.
This is a petition for special leave to appeal from a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan refusing to interfere in his revisional jurisdiction with an order of the Administrative Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, setting aside an ex parte decree passed on the 12th of July 1962, on the ground that there was no proper services on the defendants and they had sufficient reason for their failure to put in appearance.
The petitioner now seeks special leave and it is contended on his behalf that the Courts below had erred in setting aside the ex parte decree which was passed after substituted service had been effected by affixation on the residence of the respondents, in accordance with the provisions of Order V, rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, after various unsuccessful attempts to got the defendants served in the ordinary manner. Hence the substituted service was in law as good as personal service but the trial Court had merely upon conjectural grounds set aside the ex parte decree.
The High Court refused to interfere, as it found that the trial Court had before it adequate evidence to come to the conclusion to which it had arrived both as regards validity of the substituted service and as regards the date on which the defendants came to know of the ex parse decree. Learned counsel however, contends that this was a case in which the trial Court had conic to its findings upon no evidence at all. We and, however, unable to agree, for, we Find that evidence both documentary and oral was adduced before the trial Court and upon a full consideration of this evidence the trial Court arrived at its findings. This was, therefore, not a case of a finding having been arrived at upon no evidence. The High Court, in the circumstances, in our opinion, acted rightly in refusing to go behind these findings in its revisional jurisdiction. We see no ground, therefore, for granting leave in this matter: This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer