Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: RAMZAN And Another VS Respondent: SULTAN And Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Syed Usman Ali Shah Title: RAMZAN And Another vs SULTAN And Other Case No.:Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 160 of 1986 Petition No.156 of
1986 Date of Judgment:1989-06-13 Reported As: 1991 SCMR 1337 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER 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. 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. 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. 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.