GHULAM HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND OTHERS
This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' revision petitions against the trial court's refusal to set aside an ex parte decree. The core legal question was whether the trial judge's order refusing to set aside an ex parte decree is revisable by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held, in agreement with the Privy Council precedent in Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Bakhsh Singh, that a finding of the trial court on sufficient cause for setting aside an ex parte decree is not revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principle laid down is that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to interfere with findings of fact or interlocutory orders where no jurisdictional defect or illegality of the nature contemplated by the statute is established.
- Whether an order of the trial court refusing to set aside an ex parte decree is revisable by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court extend to interfering with a finding where the trial court held that sufficient cause for setting aside an ex parte decree was not made out?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This order will govern C. P. S. L. A. No, 957 of 1976 and C. P. S. L. A. No, 958 of 1976, as the question of law and facts arising in them is the same and they have been disposed of by a common judgment passed by a learnid single Judge of the Lahore High Court.
2. ' The question was whether the trial Judge's order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the petitioners should be revised by the High Court?
3. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties held that sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree was not made out. He, accordingly, dismissed the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, which was earlier passed by him. The petitions for revision filed seeking the setting aside of the said order of the learned trial Court were dismissed as the learned Judge in the High Court, relying upon Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Bakhsh Singh held that such a finding of the trial Court is not revisable under the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under section 115, C. P. C.
4. ' As we are also with agreement of the dictum of the Privy Council in the aforesaid case, no ground for interfering with the finding of the High Court exists.
5. ' These petitions, therefore, fail and are dismissed hereby. IL R 11 Cal. 6 revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.