MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BAHAWALPUR and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the refusal to set aside an ex parte decree. The petitioner had been ordered to pay Rs. 80,000 as dower in a suit filed by the respondent. The petitioner sought to set aside the ex parte decree, claiming he mistakenly believed the suit had been dismissed for non-prosecution because a separate suit for damages, filed by the respondent, had been dismissed. However, the petitioner admitted that no formal order for consolidation of the two suits was ever passed, and the hearing dates were distinct. Furthermore, the petitioner argued he should be allowed to defend the suit, alleging the respondent's claim was based on a fabricated 1995 Nikahnama, while the actual marriage occurred in 1992. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for his absence. Additionally, the Court noted that the 1992 Nikahnama relied upon by the petitioner lacked the respondent's signature. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the impugned judgment, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal.
- Does a mistaken belief that two separate suits have been consolidated constitute sufficient cause to set aside an ex parte decree?
- Can an ex parte decree be set aside if the defendant fails to show sufficient cause for their absence on the date of the decree?
- Is a party entitled to reopen an ex parte decree based on a document that lacks the opposing party's signature?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---Application filed by the petitioner for setting aside ex parte decree for recovery of Rs,80,000.00 as dower passed in favour of the private respondent by the Family Court was dismissed on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for absence on the date when the said decree was passed through he was served. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the First Appellate Court against which Constitutional petition filed by him has also been dismissed by the learned Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment, dated 17-1-2003 against which leave is-sought.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat another suitwas filed by the private respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs,100,000.00 on account of damages for giving her Talaq by the petitioner which was pending is some other Court and transferred on her application to the Court where her suit for recovery of dower amount was pending. The impression taken by the petitioner was that both the suits had been consolidated and since the said suit for damages was dismissed for non-prosecution, he assumed that the present suit had also been dismissed for non- prosecution, therefore, delay took place in making application for setting aside ex parte decree.
Learned counsel for the petitioner when questioned, admitted that no formal order waspassed for consolidation of both the suits by the Trial Court and that IA dates of hearing in both the suits were different.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the interest of justice, the petitioner should be granted opportunity to produce evidence in defence, for the suit of the private respondent was based on a fabricated Nikahnama of 1995 whereas Nikah actually took place in 1992 which is also evidenced by the Nikahnama copy of which has been placed on the record.
4. We are not inclined to interfere at this stage, for copy of Nikahnama of 1992 on which reliance has been placed, does not contain signatures of the private respondent.
5. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality therefore, this petition has no merits, which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.
Cited by 1 case
- Shafqat Ali vs Mst. Imtiaz, Mst. Ali Shiba 2023 SHC 1026