RAMZAN And Another vs SULTAN And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of an application for setting aside an ex parte judgment passed by the Lahore High Court in a writ petition. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in refusing to set aside the ex parte order where the petitioners, having been duly served earlier and issued post-cards at their proper addresses, deliberately failed to appear on the date of hearing. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners were properly served and the High Court had decided the matter on merits despite their absence, no grounds were made out to interfere with the impugned order. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a party duly served cannot claim the setting aside of an ex parte decision as a matter of right when absent without sufficient cause.
- Whether an ex parte judgment passed by the High Court can be set aside under Order IX Rule 13 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the party was duly served?
- Does the absence of a party after proper service and issuance of postal notices warrant the setting aside of an ex parte decision decided on merits?
- Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the order dated 21-1-1986 of the Lahore High Court, passed in Misc. Petition No.156 of 1986 for setting aside of an ex parte judgment in Writ Petition No.562-R"of 1977 passed in favour of respondent No.1, was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
2. Sultan respondent No.1 filed a writ petition against his two brothers Ramzan and Shafi Muhammad petitioners wherein he challenged the order of Consolidation Officer and the consequent Mutation No.88 dated 12-5-1976, excluding his name from the allotment of agricultural land under border allotment scheme. The writ petition came for hearing on 2-11-1985 before a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The petitioners after having been served were absent on the day of hearing and the writ petition proceeded ex parte which was allowed, vide order dated 2-11-1985.
3. An application under Order IX, Rule 13 read with section 151 of the C.P.C. Was made on the ground that no post-card was issued or surumons were served on the applicants. It is a matter of record that the petitioners having earlier been served in accordance with the rules and practice even then they did not appear on due date although post-cards were also issued to them on their proper addresses by the office. In spite of their absence and in view of the ex parte proceedings, the case was decided on merit by the High Court. The Miscellaneous application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge after having gone through the case and discussed once again the merit of the case.
4. Under the circumstances and facts of the case we do not think it is a 6t case for consideration of this Court, The petition accordingly, is dismissed.