Citation Name: 2023 YLR 78 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SAIF ULLAH KHAN vs ZIA ULLAH KHAN art

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 78 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SAIF ULLAH KHAN VS ZIA ULLAH KHAN art. 10a---Court had the duty to look into the rights of the minors and the Courts had to realize that a minor litigant was considered to be under Courts' protection and it was Courts' duty to watch over the minors' interests and ensure that he is duly represented/defended in the proceedings before them. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 78 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SAIF ULLAH KHAN VS ZIA ULLAH KHAN O. IX, R. 13---Suit for specific performance filed by the respondents was decreed ex-parte---Petitioners filed application for setting aside ex-parte decree which was concurrently dismissed---Validity---Onus to prove the fact that ex-parte judgment/decree was obtained by respondent by practicing fraud / misrepresentation was upon the petitioners---One of the petitioners appeared as witness and deposed that named Advocate was appointed as counsel who did not inform them about the proceedings of the case; that he had no knowledge that on certain date both the counsel of the parties recorded statements---Respondent as witness stated during examination that petitioners were aware of the proceedings of the suit; that they filed written statement; that stay application was dismissed and he filed appeal wherein the same named Advocate represented the petitioners; that the petitioners were minor at the time of institution of his suit---Admittedly, petitioners were minor at the time of passing of the ex-parte decree---Courts below decided the issue as a routine matter against the minors/petitioners---Petitioners proved their assertions through concrete/reliable/convincing oral and documentary evidence which material facts had not been taken in to consideration by the courts below---High Court had plenty jurisdiction to reverse the illegal/perverse concurrent findings---Revision petition was dismissed accordingly and suit of the respondents was deemed pending before the Trial Court.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 78 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SAIF ULLAH KHAN vs ZIA ULLAH KHAN art — 2023 YLR 78 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR