2010 GBLR 132

BAKHT BAIG Versus ABDULLAH BAIG

Citation2010 GBLR 132

CourtSupreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan

Judge(s)Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C. J., Syed Jaffar Shah and Muhammad Yaqoob

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, C.J.--- This petition has been directed against the order dated 2-4-2009 passed by the Chief Court in a civil Revision arising out of an arbitration application under section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by the present petitioner in which the Court of first instance having passed an ex parte decree on 19-4-2001 recalled the same on an application moved by the respondents who were defendants in the suit vide order dated 26-5-2003. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of setting aside ex parte decree assailed the same in revisional jurisdiction before the learned District Judge and Revisional Court by reversing the order of learned trial Judge, restored the order of ex parte decree and allowed the revision petition. Further the review petition filed by the petitioner for recall of the order passed in civil revision, was dismissed and consequently he assailed the above orders before the Chief Court in a civil revision. The Chief Court while setting aside the order of Additional District and Sessions Judge restored the order of trial Judge with direction to the learned Civil Judge at Gilgit, seized of the matter for decision of case on merits.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the date on which ex parte decree was passed the case was fixed for arguments and respondents as well as their counsel knowingly absented from the court, therefore, the recall of ex parte decree was not justified as no sufficient cause was shown for absence of the respondents and their counsel. He vehemently contended that civil revision and review petition were rightly dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereas, the Chief Court without considering the facts of the case in the light of law on the subject interfered in the matter in the civil revision which was not competent being second revision in the same matter as the order impugned before the Chief Court was passed by the learned Additional District Judge in revisional jurisdiction. The contention of learned counsel regarding the defect in exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the matter in which order was passed by the learned District Judge in civil revision may not be without force but in the present case the order passed in civil revision by Additional District and Sessions Judge merged in the order passed in review petition therefore, the objection may not be entertainable in view of the settled principle of law that a person may not be non-suited on the basic of technicalities of law, rather efforts should be made to decide the matter on merits in the interest of justice. The non-appearance of respondents on the date on which ex parte order was passed was not considered a valid ground to pass an ex parte decree and consequently the order impugned before the Chief Court was rightly reversed.

3. Be that as it may, the Chief Court having discussed all aspects of the matter in detail has remanded the case to the trial Court for decision on merits and we have not been able to find out any valid ground for interference in the order of the Chief Court.

4. In consequence to the above discussion, we dismiss this petition with direction to the learned trial Judge for expeditious disposal of arbitration application which was brought before the Court in 2001 and is still pending for adjudication on merits.

5. M.H./11/Glt. Petition dismissed.