Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL MAJID VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD IQBAL
1988 S C M R 1522
1988 S C M R 1522
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
ABDUL MAJID and 3 others‑‑Petitioners
versus
MUHAMMAD IQBAL and another‑‑Respondents Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 411 of 1983, decided on 22nd May, 1988. (On appeal from the order dated 18‑1‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.206 of 1983). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑O.IX, R.9‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Ex parte order‑‑Setting aside of‑‑Fresh notice‑‑Plea not raised before High Court‑‑Petitioners' case first tried by Civil Court and then sent to Revenue Forum‑‑Plea that petitioners were entitled as of right to be sent a fresh notice by Revenue Forum, not entertained‑‑Absence of petitioners was not due to lack of information or notice but deliberate on account of some arrangement with respondent and question of fact regarding lack of notice from Revenue Forum was not raised before High Court‑‑Petition being devoid of force, dismissed. Mian Nisar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd May, 1988. ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by vendees in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of their Writ Petition by the High Court. The petitioners have failed throughout in their attempt to get ex parte order/decree set aside. 2. The learned counsel has stated that the case was first tried by the Civil Court. Thereafter, it was sent to the Revenue Forum. Accordingly, he has contended that even if the petitioners had failed to explain their absence before the Civil Court and the further fact is accepted that their absence was intentional on account of compromise with the other party, they were entitled as of right to be sent a fresh notice by the Revenue Forum. We do not agree with the learned counsel. The perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the absence of the petitioners at the relevant time was not at all due to lack of information or notice but it was deliberate on account of some arrangement with the respondent's‑side. Moreover, when questioned, the learned counsel stated that the question of fact regarding lack of notice from the revenue forum was not raised before the High Court. 3. Looked at from whatever angle, there is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed. M.I./A‑253/S Petition dismissed.