Mst. NOOR JEHAN vs Mst. RAZIA alias RAJJO
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a defendant against the dismissal of her civil revision by the High Court, which upheld the trial court's ex parte decree in a money suit and the dismissal of her application to set aside the decree as time-barred. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of the explanation for non-appearance before the trial court and the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte decree. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the non-appearance was not sufficiently explained, and no sufficient grounds existed to interfere with the decree or grant leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal will be refused where a party fails to sufficiently explain non-appearance before the trial court and where no valid justification is shown to disturb a concurrent finding regarding an ex parte decree.
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when an application for setting aside an ex parte decree is dismissed as time-barred?
- Does failure to provide a sufficient explanation for non-appearance before the trial court justify refusing leave to appeal?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent decisions upholding an ex parte decree where no valid grounds are shown?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by a defendant in a money suit, against the dismissal by the High Court of her Civil Revision. The respondent's suit was decreed ex parte. The petitioner's application for setting aside of the ex parte decree was dismissed as time-barred. Her appeal and Civil Revision having failed, she has now sought leave to appeal.
2. ' According to the facts stated at the bar a counsel for the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court in pursuance of service of summons. However, no one appeared from the petitioner's side on the relevant subsequent dates for which adjournment was sought for filing written statement and other proceedings.
3. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question relating to non-appearance before the trial Court and the application for setting aside of the ex parte decree being time- barred and the other merits of the case. Even if it be assumed that it is a fit case for examination of the question whether the petitioner's application for setting aside the ex parte decree was time- barred, it would still not be a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. Neither nonappearance before the trial Court has been sufficiently explained nor there is any reason to deny the relief claimed by the respondent which was allowed to her by the trial Court. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.