Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Messrs MUKKARAM PRESS VS Respondent: DEWAN METHARAM DHARMADA TRUST
1988 M L D 324
1988 M L D 324
[Karachi]
Before Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J
Messrs MUKKARAM PRESS‑‑Appellant
versus
DEWAN METHARAM DHARMADA TRUST‑‑Respondent
First Rent Appeal No. 225 of 1988, decided on 26th May, 1988.
Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss. 15, 19 & 21(1)‑‑Eviction proceedings‑‑Setting aside of ex parte order‑‑After remand of case by Appellate Court to Rent Controller, Court motion notices were duly served on parties and parties thereafter continued to appear before Rent Controller‑‑Landlord appeared and filed affidavit of evidence while tenant remained absent not only on that date, but in spite of several adjournments remained absent till announcement of ex parte judgment against him without showing any reasonable cause for such absence‑‑Application of tenant for setting aside ex parte order, held, was rightly rejected by Rent Controller and no exception could be taken to such order in circumstances.
Ali Murtaza Hussain for Appellant.
ORDER This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed by the appellant/tenant against the order of Rent Controller dated 21‑2‑1988 dismissing the application of the appellant under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside ex parte order passed on 24‑8‑1987. The admitted position in the case is that Rent case No. 150/06 instituted by respondent against the appellant was remanded back to Rent Controller with direction to allow opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and to decide afresh the issues, by this Court on 13‑8‑1986 in F.R.A. No. 740 of 1983. After remand of the case Court Motion Notices issued by Rent Controller were duly served on the parties and the case diary shows that counsel for both the parties continued to appear before the Controller thereafter. On 21‑4‑1987, the diary of the Court shows that counsel for the appellant was present and case was adjourned on the application of respondent's counsel to 28‑4‑1987 as last chance for filing of Affidavit of Evidence by respondent. On 28‑4‑1987 the respondent filed affidavit of evidence but appellant and his counsel remained absent. The Controller however, adjourned the case to 7‑5‑1987 for cross‑examination of the respondents' witness. On 7‑5 1987 the appellant and his counsel were again absent and the case was adjourned to 14‑5‑1987 for cross‑examination of respondents' witness with direction to appellant to collect the copy of affidavit of evidence. On 14‑5‑1987 once again the appellant and his counsel were absent and as such the Controller closed the cross‑examination of witness and adjourned the case to 21‑5‑1987 for affidavit of evidence of the appellant. On 21‑5‑1987 the appellant and his Advocate again remained absent and no affidavit of evidence was filed and as such his side was closed and the case was posted for final argument to 31‑5‑1987. On 31‑5‑1987, once again the appellant and his counsel were absent and as such the Controller heard the argument of respondent and posted the case for announcement of judgment on 31‑5‑1987. Thereafter, the case was posted to 8‑7‑1987, 11‑7‑1987, 15‑7‑1987; 19‑7‑1987 and 1‑8‑1987 for announcement of judgment but it appears that the judgment was not ready and as such it could not be announced. However, on none of these dates the appellant or his counsel, appeared before the Court. On 1‑8‑1987, the Controller fixed the case for rehearing on 3‑8‑1987 and after rehearing the arguments announced the judgment on 24‑8‑1987. The appellant remained absent on, the date of, rehearing on 3‑8‑1987 and announcement of judgment 29‑8‑1987, and filed application for setting aside the ex parte judgment on 3‑11‑1987. The learned Rent Controller refused .to set aside the ex parte order on the ground that no reasonable cause was shown either by the appellant or his counsel for their non‑appearance from 28‑4‑1987 to 24‑8‑1987 Mr. Ali Murtaza Hussain, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that his. junior had attended the Court of Controller on all these dates but he was told by the Bench Clerk that the respondent was not yet served by the Court motion notice. This stand of appellant was rightly rejected by the Rent Controller as prior to 28‑4‑ A 1987, both the counsel for the parties attended the Court. No exception can be taken to the order of Rent Controller in the circumstances of the case. No case for interference is made out The appeal is dismissed summarily.
H.B.T./M‑561/K
Appeal dismissed.