MESSERS SPLENDOURS INTERNATIONAL vs GOVENMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed its civil revision, thereby upholding an appellate order that set aside an ex-parte decree passed against the respondent. The core legal question was whether the appellate court acted within its discretion in setting aside the ex-parte decree based on the appraisal of evidence regarding the Government pleader's absence on the date of the decree. The Supreme Court observed that the District Judge had exercised discretion by preferring the Government pleader's statement, considering the extraordinary circumstances of public agitation and tension in Lahore on the date in question. The Supreme Court held that the petition essentially sought a re-appraisement of evidence to challenge a conclusion of fact, which did not constitute a legal error or a serious question of law warranting interference. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that appellate courts have discretion to set aside ex-parte orders when sufficient cause for absence is established, particularly under exceptional circumstances, and that such factual findings are generally not subject to review in the absence of legal error.
- Whether an appellate court's decision to set aside an ex-parte decree based on the appraisal of evidence regarding a party's absence constitutes a reviewable error of law?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the sufficiency of cause for a party's absence in civil proceedings?
- Does the exercise of judicial discretion by an appellate court to set aside an ex-parte decree, based on extraordinary public circumstances, warrant interference in revision?
ORDER
SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-The petitioner a plaintiff seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 16-9-1981 whereby a civil revision filed by it was dismissed.
2. The petitioner had instituted a civil suit against the respondent and it was decreed ex parte on 9- 4-1977, four days after the Government pleader moved an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. It was contested and rejected by the trial Court but on appeal the District Judge gave a number of reasons and set it aside. The petitioner's revision in the High Court failed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Judge in accepting the appeal has unjustifiably interfered with the discretion of the trial Court and has ignored the material evidence' on the record and the pleading of the respondent which was inconsistent and could not sustain the findings of the learned District Judge.
4. It was a question of appraising the evidence led by both the parties with regard to the sufficiency of the-cause, which accounted for the absence of the Government pleader on 9-4-1977. The District Judge preferred the state--ment of the Government pleader over others and also held that such controverted matter should not have gone by default and ex parte order should not have been passed in the early portion of the day. The learned Judge in the High Court sustained the conclusions drawn by the District Judge observing as follows ". ..It is too well known that on the fateful date, i.e. 9th April, 1977 the city of Lahore was in the grip of great tension. There was large scale public agitation and the firing had taken place outside the Assembly Chambers. The city life was completely disturbed. In the circumstances no legitimate exception can be taken to the exercise of discretion by the learned Additional District Judge in favour of the respondent."
5. We find that the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners relates to the appraisement of evidence with a view to arrive at a conclusion of fact. The learned District Judge has preferred the statement of the Government pleader, which he made on solemn affirmation which was attested by the cross-examination rather than confining examination of the case from the contents of the applications as such. We find that there is no legal error or a serious question of law such as may require examination in this Court, Leave to appeal is, therefore refused.
Leave reused.