MUHAMMAD SALEEM and others vs MUKHTAR AHMAD
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit wherein an ex parte decree was passed against the petitioners. The petitioners' application to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed by the trial court as time-barred and lacking sufficient cause, a view upheld by the appellate court and the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the four days' delay beyond the thirty-day limitation period could be excluded by accounting for the time spent in obtaining a certified copy of the ex parte decree. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since neither Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 nor any other applicable law requires a certified copy of the decree to be appended to an application for setting aside an ex parte decree, the time spent obtaining such a copy cannot be excluded. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the lower courts' findings on limitation.
- Whether an application for setting aside an ex parte decree requires a certified copy of the decree to be attached?
- Does the time spent in obtaining a certified copy of an ex parte decree extend the limitation period for filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a delay of four days in filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree condonable without sufficient explanation under Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Article 164, First Schedule, Limitation Act 1908
- Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.---This petition has arisen out of a suit brought by the respondent, Mukhtar Ahmad against the petitioners, Muhammad Saleem and others. The suit was decreed ex parte by a Civil Judge. The petitioners made an application for setting aside the ex parte decree, but the application was dismissed on the ground that it was time-barred and that the petitioners had not been able to show sufficient cause for their failure to appear before the learned trial Court to contest the suit. Order of the learned Civil Judge in this regard was challenged by the petitioners by filing appeal before an Additional District Judge. View taken by the learned Additional District Judge was that there were sufficient reasons for making the application but ha upheld the finding of the learned trial Court on the question of limitation. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners, therefore, submitted revision petition before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, but it was dismissed by a Single Judge thereof. Hence this petition for leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judge in Chamber.
2. The ex parte decree was passed on 21-6-1977. According to the petitioners, they were not served in the suit and that the ex parte decree was granted at their back. Allegedly, the petitioners came to know of the ex parte decree on 25-8-1980. On 29-9-1980, they made application for setting aside the ex parte decree. This means that they filed application for setting aside the ex parte decree after 34 days of acquiring knowledge thereof. In view of Article 164 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, the application should have been made within thirty days of the knowledge of the ex parte decree but the petitioners were late by four days in so doing. View taken by the learned Single Judge of the High Court was that this four days' delay had not been adequately explained. He, therefore, found nothing wrong with the order of the learned Additional District Judge and dismissed the revision petition.
3. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that after coming to know of the ex parte decree, the petitioners made application for obtaining copy of the said decree_ which was supplied to them on 28-9-1980 and then on the following day, they filed application for setting aside the ex parte decree. Thus, according to the learned counsel, after excluding the period spent by them for obtaining the copy, their application for setting aside the ex parte decree was within time.
4. Provisions relating to the setting aside of an ex parte decree find mention in rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure. These provisions do not oblige a person making application for setting aside the ex parte decree to file certified copy of such decree along with his application. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any other provision of law or rule where under the said application could not be made without appending thereto certified copy of the ex parte decree. Thus, even if it is assumed that the petitioners acquired knowledge of the ex parte decree on 25-8-1980, there is no good explanation for their failure to file application for setting the ex parte decree after four days of the running out of the period of limitation, namely, 30 days following acquisition of knowledge of the ex parte decree.
5 In the circumstances, no legitimate exception can be taken to the order of the learned Judge in Chamber. Leave to appeal against his order is, therefore, refused and the petition in hand dismissed.
Cited by 6 cases
- Qaiser vs Iffat Abbasi 2024 IHC 162
- Shaukat Hussain Bhatti & another vs Khalid Latif & others 2021 MLD 497, 2020 IHC 84
- Raja SHAHDURAN ALI Versus HABIB-UR-REHMAN 2016 GBLR 229
- AKRAM RASHID vs HAMID ALI KHAN 2015 C.L.R.1288, 2015 PLJ Islamabad 226, 2015 CLC 1290
- PORT QASIM AUTHORITY and another vs MISTLE2 CORPORATION 2001 YLR 1116
- Mst. RUKHSANA vs S.H.O., POLICE STATION BELO, MIRPUR MATHELO and others 1999 P Cr. L J 638