Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 16‑9‑1981

of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 1193 of 1981).

---O. IX, r. 13‑Petitioner's suit against respondent decreed ex parte but not restored on application being made by respondent four days later‑Trial Court's order set aside by District Judge and revision before High Court dismissed‑Contention as to District Judge in accepting appeal interfered with discretion of trial Court unjustifiably and ignored material evidence on record‑Held: Not correct‑District Judge on appraisal of evidence having preferred statement of respon dent's counsel with regard to sufficiency of cause accounting for his absence and question relating to appraisement of evidence no legal error involved in impugned order‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Sheikh Ziaullah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Syed Iftikhar Ahmad, Deputy Attorney‑General for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 5th December, 1981.

‑The petitioner a plaintiff seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 16‑9‑1981 whereby a civil revision filed by it was dismissed.

2. The petitioner had instituted a civil suit against the respondent and it was decreed ex parte on 9‑4‑1977, four days after the Government pleader moved an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. It was contested and rejected by the trial Court but on appeal the District Judge gave a number of reasons and set it aside. The petitioner's revision in the High Court failed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Judge in accepting the appeal has unjustifiably interfered with the discretion of the trial Court and has ignored the material evidence' on the record and the pleading of the respondent which was inconsistent and could not sustain the findings of the learned District Judge.

4. It was a question of appraising the evidence led by both the parties with regard to the sufficiency of the‑cause, which accounted for the absence of the Government pleader on 9‑4‑1977. The District Judge preferred the state ment of the Government pleader over others and also held that such controverted matter should not have gone by default and ex parte order should not have been passed in the early portion of the day. The learned Judge in the High Court sustained the conclusions drawn by the District Judge observing as follows

". ..It is too well known that on the fateful date, i.e. 9th April, 1977 the city of Lahore was in the grip of great tension. There was large scale public agitation and the firing had taken place outside the Assembly Chambers. The city life was completely disturbed. In the circumstances no legitimate exception can be taken to the exercise of discretion by the learned Additional District Judge in favour of the respondent."

5. We find that the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners relates to the appraisement of evidence with a view to arrive at a conclusion of fact. The learned District Judge has preferred the statement of the Government pleader, which he made on solemn affirmation which was attested by the cross‑examination rather than confining examination of the case from the contents of the applications as such. We find that there is no legal error or a serious question of law such as may require examination in this Court, Leave to appeal is, therefore refused.

Leave reused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.