Mst. ZAIDAT vs SHAHADAT and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a plaintiff against the dismissal of her writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the setting aside of an ex parte decree previously passed in her favour. The core legal question concerns whether the revisional order setting aside the ex parte decree warranted interference under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the revisional order passed by the District Judge was not liable to be set aside in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, particularly as subsequent proceedings on merits had already concluded and a separate petition was pending. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction will not be exercised to interfere with a revisional order setting aside an ex parte decree when the substantive suit has already proceeded and been decided on its merits.
- Whether an order setting aside an ex parte decree is open to interference in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does the conclusion of proceedings on merits in the main suit affect a pending challenge against the setting aside of an ex parte decree?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff in a suit for possession, against the dismissal by the High Court of her writ petition; which had arisen out of the setting aside of an ex parte decree in her favour.
2. ' The ex parte decree passed against the respondents side was set aside by the trial Court in second round of litigation after a remand by the District Court. The petitioner's Civil Revision against the setting aside of ex parte decree was dismissed. The revisional order having been challenged in the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction without any success, the petitioner has sought leave to appeal.
3. ' No stay order was passed by this Court, regarding the continuance of proceedings after the setting aside of the ex parte decree. Learned counsel has informed that the suit having been decided on merits, a petition for leave to appeal filed separately by the petitioner, is now pending against the decision of the case on merits.
4. After hearing the learned counsel, in the circumstance of this case, we agree with the High Court that the revisional order passed by the District Judge was not liable to be set aside in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. 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.
Cited by 3 cases
- TANVEER AHMAD and 3 others vs Mst. MOQADDAS BEGUM and 7 others 2014 MLD 687
- Mst. KUNDAN MAI vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM 2002 YLR 2531
- MUHAMMAD SHAM Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR 2002 CLC 250