Case law on exparte decree. Notice was served properly .

The Lahore High Court made a unique decision regarding how Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan applies to cases where proper notice and service are contested. They likely focused on ensuring fair trials and due process by addressing the issue of notification in legal proceedings. This ruling could establish a precedent for similar cases in the future.

The order by the Lahore High Court was likely related to upholding the lower appellate court's judgment, which stated that the appellant/tenant was served personally, and the Process Server testified under oath that he served the appellant in person. This order indicated that the court found the service of notice to be valid and upheld the decisions made by the lower courts in the case against Muhammad Saeed.

Form No.HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P. No.35336 of 2024.

Muhammad Ilyas.

Versus

Muhammad Saeed, etc.

S.No.of order/

Proceeding

Date of Order/

Proceeding

Order with signature of Judge, and that of

parties’ counsel, where necessary.

05.06.2024

Mr. Amjad Qayum, Advocate for the petitioner.

In this petition under Article 199 of the

Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the

petitioner has assailed the order dated 02.04.2024

passed by the Special Judge Rent, Gujranwala whereby

application of the petitioner for setting aside ex-parte

final order was dismissed as well as the judgment dated

23.04.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge,

Gujranwala whereby appeal of the petitioner thereagainst was also dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

the impugned decisions of the courts below are against

the law and facts and result of misapplication of law

inasmuch as the petitioner was not aware about the

proceedings as no notice was ever served upon the

petitioner.

The impugned judgment dated 23.04.2024 of the

lower appellate court has been passed to the following

effect:-

“9.

In the instant case appellant/tenant was

served personally and learned trial court had

recorded the statement of Process Server in this

regard who on oath submitted that he effected

service of appellant in person. It is manifest from

the record that appellant/tenant has filed simple

application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings

and final order, whereas no application for leave to

contest has been accompanied alongwith the said

W.P. No.35336 of 2024

petition which is against the spirit of Section 21(4)

of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009.”

When confronted, learned counsel for the

petitioner concedes that although no application for

leave to contest was filed, however, specific plea was

taken in the application for setting aside ex-parte final

order to question ownership of respondent No.1 qua

demised premises which warranted grant of leave,

framing of issues and decision after recording of

evidence.

Section 21(4) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act,

2009 (‘Act’) states that if an ex-parte order is passed

against a respondent, the respondent may, within ten

days from the date of knowledge, apply to the Rent

Tribunal for setting aside ex-parte order along with an

application for leave to contest. Section 22(3) of the Act

provides that an application for leave to contest shall be

in the form of a written reply, stating grounds on which

the leave is sought and shall be accompanied by an

affidavit of the respondent, copy of all relevant

documents in his possession and, if desired, affidavits

of not more than two witnesses.

From perusal of Section 21(4) of the Act, it is

abundantly clear that while applying for setting aside

ex-parte order, a separate application for leave to

contest, in the form and manner prescribed in Section

22(3) of the Act has to be filed within the period of

limitation. Any plea taken on merits of the case in the

application for setting aside ex-parte order passed by

the Rent Tribunal under Section 21 of the Act without

an application seeking leave to contest in the form and

W.P. No.35336 of 2024

manner prescribed under Section 22(3) of the Act

cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, the

impugned order dated 23.04.2024 is unexceptionable

and warrants no interference.

In view of foregoing, no illegality, infirmity or

jurisdictional error has been pointed out by learned

counsel for the petitioner in the impugned decisions of

the courts below warranting interference of this Court

in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the

Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

Resultantly, instant petition, being devoid of any merit,

is hereby dismissed in limine.

(RAHEEL KAMRAN)

JUDGE

Approved for reporting.

JUDGE

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.