Find a Lawyer

Judicial Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 1986, decided on 6th October 1986.

‑‑‑S. 12(2)‑‑Ex parte decree, setting aside of‑‑Application, maintainability of‑‑Defendant, duly served with summons would be duty bound to look after case either himself or through his counsel‑‑Application filed by defendant under S.12(2), C.P.C. for recalling ex parte decree passed after due service on him, held, would not be sustainable in law.

Faizanul Haq for Applicant.

In response to the summons issued to the applicant as defendant No.l in Suit No. 691 of 1980, he appeared in person and filed his written statement on 8‑9‑1980. He did not engage an Advocate and used to appear in person. As alleged, he was informed by the office that the notice of the date of regular hearing will be sent to him, which according to him, he never received. It was only on the receipt of a notice, dated 6‑5‑1986 issued in execution that he came to know that the suit has been decreed on 5th September, 1984. Thereafter, he has filed this application on 29‑9‑1986 under section 12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside the judgment and decree.

The submissions made by the counsel are belied by the record of the Court. A number of times notices of intimation were sent to him by the office and some time the applicant was served also.

After the defendants are served with the summons, it is their duty to look after the case either by themselves or through their counsel. Moreover, a party or his counsel in a suit is required to attend the case before the Additional Registrar (O.S.) on the dates A when the matters are fixed before the Court and no individual notice of intimation is necessary to be served under the Sind Chief Court Rules (O.S.).

The application is, therefore, misconceived and is not sustainable in law. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

H.B.T./U‑1/K Application 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.