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.
Office Reference, dated 1st December, 1983 in First Regular Appeal No. 937 of 1983, decided on 5th December, 1983.
-- S. 21 CivilProcedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, r. 8 Setting aside of ex parte ejectment order Filing of appeal Limitation Ser vices of notice not effected on tenant and order holding service to be good obtained through representation by landlord As soon as appel lant tenant came to know about passing of such order, filing application for setting aside ex parte order Such application dismissed Tenant filing appeal within 30 days of rejection of application Held, since question in appeal was whether tenant properly served in accordance with law and application filed as soon as tenant came to know, appeal filed was not barred by time. [Limitation].
1982 C L C 1314 ref.
Attaullah Khan for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 5th December, 1983.
Theoffice has raised objection that the appeal is barred by the limitation According to the office; the ejectment order was passed on 30th November, 1981 whereas the present appeal has been filed in this Court under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on 29th November, 1983. It is submitted by the learned counsel that according to the appellant service of the notice of the ejectment case has not been effected upon the appellant and the order holding the service to be good had been obtained through its representation by the respondent. According to the learned counsel, as soon the appellant came to know about the passing of the impugned ejectment order, a application for setting aside the ex parte order was moved by the appellant but the same has now been rejected by order, dated 17th Novem ber, 1983. It is submitted that this appeal has been filed within 30 days of the order, dated 17th November, 1983 of the Rent Controller dismissing the application of the appellant for setting aside the ex parte order.
2. Reliance is also placed on 1982 C L C 1314. The question that is to be decided in this appeal is whether the appellant had been properly served in accordance with law of the main ejectment case. If the appellant had not been served, and if the application for setting aside the ex parte order had been moved soon as the appellant came to know about it, the present appeal will not be barred by time of the appeal has been filed within 30 days of the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the application.
3. The objection of the office is accordingly overruled. The case may now be fixed for katcha peshi. It is submitted by the learned counsel that execution is fixed tomorrow where it likely that the writ of possess on will be issued. It is further ordered that till the further orders of Court the appellant will not be ejected.
M. Y. H. Objection overruled.
***