Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 606 of 1976, decided on 26th June, 1984.

‑‑‑S. 115 & O.IX, r. 13‑-- Revision‑‑Ex parte decree‑‑Setting aside of‑ WAPDA employee in civil Suit seeking declaration that order ignoring him from promotion was ultra vires and notwithstanding same he was entitled to hold higher post‑‑Suit decreed ex parte because of non appearance of any one on behalf of WAPDA despite knowledge of adjourned date to counsel of WAPDA‑‑Application for setting aside ex parte decree rejected and appeal also dismissed by Additional District Judge‑‑Revision petition of WAPDA in High Court‑‑Respondent employee stating to have no objection to acceptance of revision petition and setting aside ex parte decree subject to payment of sufficient costs and direction to trial Court to finally decide suit within current year because delay was likely to affect his career‑‑WAPDA having no objection‑‑Revision petition, in circumstances, accepted setting aside ex parte decree subject to payment of Rs.500 as costs and suit remanded to trial Court with direction to finally decide same before end of current year.

Sajjad Hussain for Petitioner.

S.M.K. Lodhi for Respondent.

Dates of hearing: 16th and 26th June, 1984.

This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, dated 17‑4‑1976, whereby an appeal filed by the petitioners from the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, on 30‑5‑1975, in favour of the respondent was dismissed with costs.

2. The respondent was employed with the petitioners as Accounts Assistant. On 8‑6‑1974, he instituted a suit against the petitioners for a declaration that the order dated 31‑5‑1974 ignoring him for promotion as Assistant Accountant were ultra vires and void and notwithstanding the same he was entitled to hold the post of Assistant Accountant and to receive pay and allowances attached to that post. The suit was contested. During the pendency of the suit, viz. on 12‑11‑1974, the respondent moved an application under section 55 of the Specific Relief Act for a mandatory injunction directing the petitioners to grant him N.P.S.‑16 with effect from 1‑7‑1974 and scale of Rs. 350‑25‑450‑EB 25‑600‑EB‑30‑750 from 25‑2‑1974 to 30‑6‑1974. The suit was adjourned to 18‑11‑1974 for a reply to the application. This date was fixed in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties. However, on 18‑11‑1974, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioners and in the result the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, proceeded ex parte against the petitioners and decreed the suit of the respondent ex parte on the same date.

3. On 23‑12‑1974, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioners for setting aside the ex parte decree. It was alleged that the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioners occurred on account of misconception about the date of hearing as he was under a misappre hension that on 12‑11‑1974 the next date for the reply had been fixed as 18‑12‑1974. In support of this allegation, an affidavit of Mr. Hamid Mahmood Malik, Advocate, counsel for the petitioners, was filed. The learned counsel for the respondent made a statement raising no objection to the affidavit. No counter‑affidavit too was filed on behalf of the respondent. The learned Civil Judge did not accept the plea of the petitioners and dismissed their application vide his order, dated 30‑5‑1975.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal which was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, who vide his judgment dated 17‑4‑1976 dismissed the same concurring in the views of the learned trial Court. Hence, this revision petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. After some arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent has stated that he has no objection to the acceptance of this revision petition and setting aside of the ex parte decree, subject to the payment of sufficient costs and a direction to the trial Court to finally decide the suit before the end of the current year as the delay in the disposal of the suit is likely to affect the career of the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection. Therefore, this revision petition is accepted, the impugned ex parte decree is set aside subject to the payment of Rs. 500 as costs and the suit is remanded to the trial Court for its decision afresh in accordance with law and procedure. The record shall be sent back to the learned District Judge, Lahore for the entrustment of the suit to a competent Court for trial. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Lahore, for the entrustment of the suit to a competent Court for trial. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Lahore, on 9‑7‑1984. The learned trial Court shall finally decide the suit before the end or this year. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

A. E. Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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