Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 593 and 594 of 1977, decided on 21st April, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgments, dated 20‑8‑1977 and 16‑6‑1977 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Review Petition No. 35/C/77 and Regular Second Appeal No. 404 of 1966).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100‑‑Second appeal decided ex parte‑‑Judgment upheld in review‑‑Two petitions for leave to appeal‑‑One time‑barred ‑Plea that petitioners were not aware of passing of order, dealt with by High Court and rejected‑‑Petitions dismissed as time‑barred and on merits.

Talib H . Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court with Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Aziz Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court with Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 21st April, 1985.

‑‑This order will dispose of Civil Petition No. 593 and Civil Petition No. 594 of 1977, as both of them relate to the same subject‑matter and the parties in both are the same.

The High Court, by its order, dated 16‑6‑1977, accepted the second appeal (R.S.A. No. 404/66) filed by Rehmat Khan, etc. (respondents herein) against Ahman, etc. (petitioners herein) whereby the decree passed in their favour to the effect that they were owners of the land in dispute by purchase was set aside. When the appeal was accepted no one on behalf of Ahman, etc. was present before the High Court. Civil Petition No. 594 of 1977 is directed against the above said judgment of the High Court, dated 16‑6‑1977 and is barred by 26 days.

The petitioners herein had also filed a review petition against the order of the High Court, dated 16‑6‑1977 passed in R.S.A. No.404 of 1966 on the ground that they had not been served for the date of hearing and, therefore, the judgment, dated 16‑6‑1977 was liable to be set aside. The learned Judge carefully examined this plea and found that the petitioners herein were initially served on 14‑8‑1966 and then on 27‑5‑1977 and they were issued registered post‑cards for the hearing of the appeal which was initially fixed for 9‑6‑1977. Although the case was not heard on that date and was ultimately heard during the next week i.e. on 16‑6‑1977 for which date there was specific notice but it was found that there was no necessity of effecting a separate service on them for the said date in view of Item No. 19(iii) of the High Court Rules and Orders. Hence, no ground for setting aside the ex parte order was found to exist. The learned Judge, nevertheless allowed the petitioners to advance their point of view and prove that they were purchasers of the land in dispute. However, after considering the above plea he found that this plea was not established, The review petition was, accordingly, dismissed by him vide order, dated 23‑8‑1977. Civil Petition No. 593 of 1977 is directed against the above said order, dated 23‑8‑1977.

Civil Petition No. 594 of 1977, which is directed against the main judgment of the High Court, is, as already noted, barred by 26 days. The application for condonation of delay is based on the ground that the petitioners were not aware of the passing of the order. However, this very matter was dealt with by the High Court itself and it found no force in this plea and refused to set aside the order in review. We agree with the said finding. Hence, no good ground for condonation of delay is made out. This petition is dismissed as barred by time.

So far as Civil Petition No. 593 of 1977 it, concerned, the same is directed against the order upholding the earlier judgment, dated 16‑6‑1977 and rejecting the review petition. We agree with the High Court that there was no good ground for reviewing its judgment and that the review petition was rightly dismissed. Civil Petition No. 593 of 1977 must, therefore, also fail and is dismissed hereby. The result is that both the petitions fail and are rejected.

M.I. Petitions dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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