DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & D. M., KARACHI AND ANOTHER vs Mst.
This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against a consolidated order of the Sind High Court which dismissed the petitioners' applications under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for setting aside an ex parte judgment passed in constitutional petitions. The core legal question addressed by the High Court and reviewed by this Court was whether sufficient cause was established by the petitioners to explain the absence of their counsel on the date of hearing. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order declining to set aside the ex parte judgment was passed in the proper exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction and was in full accord with well-settled principles of law. The key principle laid down is that appellate interference with the discretionary refusal of a court to set aside an ex parte order is unwarranted where no sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown and no violation of law has occurred.
- Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to set aside the ex parte judgment under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the absence of counsel without sufficient cause constitute a ground for setting aside an ex parte order?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court regarding ex parte proceedings?
- Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-By these two petitions leave to appeal is sought from the consolidated order of Sind Court dated 13-2-1983 dismissing petitioners' two applications under Order IX, rule 13, C. P. C. For setting aside the ex parte judgment dated 31- -1982 passed in Constitution Petitions Nos.
2. D-z68 of 1980 and D-961 of 1981. Learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court have held by the detailed reasons stated in the order that "they have not been satisfied that there was any sufficient cause which prevented the learned counsel for the petitioners" from appearing in Court on the date of hearing.
3. After hearing the learned Additional Advocate-General in the light of the' record before us we find that the order passed by the High Court in exercise Of its discretionary jurisdiction is in full accord with the well-settled principles, and by dismissing petitioners' applications the High Court has not violated any provision of law.
4. ' Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed.