GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 3 Others vs Mst. AISHA

This matter involves a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which refused to interfere in revision with a trial court's decision to set aside an ex parte decree. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted correctly in exercising its discretion to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the defendant, an illiterate elderly woman. The trial court had found, based on evidence, that the defendant failed to appear on the date of hearing because the plaintiffs had misled her by claiming the suit had been dismissed for non-payment of court fees. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in declining to interfere with the trial court's order, as the trial court had sufficient grounds to be satisfied that the defendant's absence was due to the plaintiffs' misrepresentation. The principle laid down is that appellate or revisional courts should not interfere with a trial court's discretionary order to set aside an ex parte decree when such order is based on a sound finding of fact regarding the defendant's absence.