MUHAMMAD ANWAR BIRLAS vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL BHATTI
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order that dismissed a Civil Revision petition filed by the defendant. The underlying matter originated from an application to set aside an ex parte money decree passed against the petitioner. The High Court had ruled against the petitioner on two primary grounds: the issue of limitation and the insufficiency of cause for the delay. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought to contest these findings. The Supreme Court observed that even if the application were not time-barred, the petitioner had failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the default, a finding of fact made by the High Court that remained unexceptionable. Furthermore, upon reviewing the petitioner's liability regarding the loan obtained via a promissory note, the Court determined the case was not a fit matter for examination on its merits. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to maintain the ex parte decree.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the sufficiency of cause for setting aside an ex parte decree?
- Is a finding of fact by the High Court regarding the sufficiency of cause for delay subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This is a defendant's petition for leave to appeal, against the dismissal by the High Court of his Civil Revision. It had arisen out of an application for setting aside an ex parte money decree passed against him.
2. ' The learned Judge in the High Court has given findings against the petitioner both on the question of limitation as also insufficiency of cause. Learned counsel has raised arguments in support of this petition both on the question of limitation as also the sufficiency of cause.
3. Although, it might be possible to ultimately hold that the petitioner's application was not time- barred yet it would not be possible to set aside the findings of fact that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the conditions with regard to the "sufficiency of cause". The observations of the High Court in this behalf being in the field of findings of fact and also being unexceptionable, leave to appeal is refused. Otherwise too, after hearing the learned counsel on the question regarding petitioner's liability to pay the loan obtained on a promissory note, we do not deem it a fit case for examination on merits either.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAMSUDDIN vs JEEVAT RAM and 4 others 2013 YLR 765