GHULAM MUHAMMAD AWAN AND Another vs ILAM DIN AND 2 Other
The petitioners, tenants of the property in question, challenged the dismissal in limine of their constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld an ex parte ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the District Judge. The core legal question concerned whether the lower courts and the High Court erred in refusing to set aside the ex parte ejectment proceedings and declining to interfere with the tenant's persistent non-appearance and default in payment of costs. The Supreme Court held that given the consistent conduct of the petitioners and their repeated non-appearances before the tribunals, no justification existed for interfering with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking extraordinary constitutional relief against concurrent orders of ejectment cannot succeed when their own conduct demonstrates persistent default and negligence in prosecuting their case.
- Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction against an ex parte ejectment order where the tenants repeatedly failed to appear?
- Does persistent non-appearance and default in payment of costs disentitle a party from obtaining discretionary relief from the court?
- Whether an ex parte ejectment order passed after repeated defaults by the tenant warrants setting aside by the appellate court?
ORDER
M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-The petitioners, who are tenants in respect of the property in question, are aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated 28-11-1981, whereby their writ petition against an ex paste order of ejectment passed against them by the Controller and affirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Lahore, was dismissed in limine.
2. It appears from the submissions made that the Controller had passed an order on 7-10-1979 to proceed ex parte against the petitioners on account of their non-appearance. On their application the order was recalled on payment of costs. Subsequently, too, costs were imposed, once of Rs. 40 on 1-3-1980 and again of Rs. 20 on 10.5-1980 on account of their non-appearance. On 25-5-1980 an order for proceeding against them ex parte was again passed by the Controller on account of their non-appearance. Their applica--tion for setting aside the same was, after due hearing, rejected on 10-7-1980, on which date the order of ejectment was also passed on the basis of the evidence already produced by the landlord. The petitioners went in appeal before the District Judge, Lahore, but there, too, they repeated their act of non-appearance. They were even penalized by the imposition of costs of Rs. 100.00 by the appellate Court. Nevertheless, they did not appear on the final date for hearing of arguments. The High Court found that no case had been made out for interference in the constitutional jurisdiction.
2. The contention urged before us is that the difficulty of the lawyer had not been considered by the Courts below, that the non-appearance was on account of miscalculation by the petitioners' lawyer, that sufficiency of the grounds for setting aside the order of the Controller was not considered by the appellate Court and that the evidence of A. W. 1 having been recorded ex parte could not be taken into consideration after' the ex parte order ha been set aside. From the conduct of the petitioners as brought out above we find little justification to interfere with the order of the High Court. They had invoked the extraordinary discretionary Jurisdiction under the Constitution but in view of their conduct the High Court was not unjustified in its discre--tion not to intervene.
The petition for leave to appeal, is, therefore, dismissed.