Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAMIM ARA VS Respondent: ABDUL QADIR
1988 S C M R 1684
1988 S C M R 1684
Present: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
Mst. SHAMIM ARA‑‑Petitioner
versus
Hafiz ABDUL QADIR and another‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.156 of 1981, decided on 4th July, 1988.
(From the orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24‑11‑1979, 16‑11‑1980 and 16‑12‑1980 in W.P. No.470‑R of 1977, ICA No.680 of 1980 and C.M. No.3449 of 1980).
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Settlement matter‑‑Reliance on allegedly forged documents‑‑Effect of‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider inter alia the plea that both at level of Settlement Authorities and before High Court most of documents which had been forged, were relied upon and matter required a thorough probe.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑O.IX, R.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑Ex parte order, setting aside of‑‑Constitutional petition in Settlement matter‑‑Respondent failing to appear‑‑High Court's order rejecting petitioner's application for setting aside ex parte order passed against her, impugned‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider inter alia contention that absence of petitioner before High Court was neither deliberate nor due to carelessness on her part and her reasonable explanation was not accepted by High Court without any legal justification.
Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
ORDER
GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J.‑‑Mst. Shamim Ara has filed this petition for special leave to appeal against Hafiz Abdul Qadir and another in which she has assailed three orders of the High Court dated 24‑11‑1979, 16‑11‑1980 and 16‑12‑1980 (wrongly mentioned as 18‑12‑1980 in the petition).
The High Court accepted the Constitution petition filed by Hafiz Abdul Qadir but it was ex parte against the petitioner. On coming to know of the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner applied for setting it aside by moving an application under section 151, Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. That application was dismissed. Against that an I.C.A. was filed and a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissed that. Hence this petition.
Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition contended that both at the level of the Settlement Authorities and before the High Court, most of the documents had been forged. So far so that a forged order of the Settlement commissioner has been relied upon. He submitted that all this requires a thorough probe.
With regard to the absence of the petitioner before the High Court, learned counsel submitted that it was neither deliberate nor due to carelessness on the part of the petitioner but she gave a reasonable explanation which was not accepted by the High Court without any legal justification.
The matter needs examination. Leave is granted accordingly. Security Rs.5,000.
The appeal to be made ready on the present record.
The parties can file additional documents, if any, within two months.
M.I./S‑177/S Leave granted.