AHMED BUX & SONS vs ISMAIL
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sindh High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the re-hearing of an appeal. The petitioner had sought a re-hearing under Order XLI, Rule 21, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, read with Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, after the High Court decided an ejectment appeal against them in their absence. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in dismissing the application for re-hearing when the record, specifically the bailiff's report, indicated that the petitioner had not been served with notice of the appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the issue of non-service of notice requires consideration to determine if the re-hearing application should have been granted. The Court further stayed the ejectment of the petitioner, subject to the regular payment of rent, pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
- Whether an application for re-hearing of an appeal is maintainable when the appellant was not served with notice of the appeal?
- Does the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 regarding the re-hearing of appeals?
- Order XLI Rule 21, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 21, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 23-5-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court upon an application under Order XLI, rule 21, C.P.C. Read with section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 filed by the petitioner in F.R.A. No,381/89, for re-hearing of the appeal which was heard and allowed by the learned Judge in Chambers on 8-3-1992 in the absence of the petitioner who was respondent in the above F.R.A. And whereby respondent's ejectment application was granted, dismissing the same on the ground that the above provisions of C.P.C. Were not applicable to F.R.As. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. We have heard Mr. A.A. Siddiqi, learned A.S.C. For the petitioner and have also perused the record of the High Court in respect of the above F.R.A. The bailiff' s report dated 7-3-1992 indicates that the petitioner was not served with the notice of the appeal. In spite of that appeal was heard on 8-3- 1992 and was decided against the petitioner. We are inclined to grant leave to consider, whether in view of the fact that the petitioner was not served with the notice of the appeal, the learned Judge in Chambers should have granted the petitioner' s above application for re-hearing of the appeal.
3. ' Leave is accordingly granted. The petitioner shall not be ejected till further order of this Court subject to payment of rent regularly. 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.