MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHUJABAD O — 2025 CLC 1737 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHUJABAD O.IX, R.13---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5---Ex parte decree, setting aside of---Limitation---Non-service due to incorrect/incomplete address---Decision of miscellaneous and ancillary applications before passing final judgment---Scope---Not deciding application for condonation of delay before passing final judgment was not fatal---Courts below conscious of its pendency---Delay deemed impliedly condoned---Implied condonation of delay permissible in view of proprietary rights and absence of prejudice to the opposite party---Substantial justice overrides technical objections---The pivotal legal issue that invited the consideration of the High Court was as to "Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below, whereby the ex parte proceedings and decree were set aside and the suit was revived, could be sustained in law despite the admitted pendency of an application for condonation of delay under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which remained undecided, and whether such omission constituted a material irregularity vitiating the legality and propriety of the impugned orders"---The factual backdrop was that the petitioner (now deceased) filed a suit for cancellation of mutation (pertaining to 4-kanals land) and recovery of gold ornaments against his wife, (respondent No. 3), alleging she deserted him after receiving these benefits---The suit was decreed ex parte on 11.07.2015 after proceedings against her were initiated ex parte on 04.10.2014---Respondent No. 3 (wife) filed an application under Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte proceedings and decree, asserting she only came to know of the decree on 22.02.2022 and filed the application on 29.06.2022---Her plea was that an incorrect/incomplete address was provided, which led to non-service---Application for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree was accepted and the suit was revived---Revision petition filed thereagainst by the petitioner was dismissed---The petitioner, since deceased, filed constitutional petition through legal heirs and made challenge to the concurrent findings of both the courts below on the grounds that the respondent's application was barred by time; her application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, for condonation of delay was not expressly decided, therefore, setting aside the ex parte decree without adjudication of the limitation issue was legally flawed---Held: Notwithstanding the disposal of appeal on merits without dealing with the question of limitation in express words, it would be deemed that there was implied condonation of delay---No one should be condemned unheard and parties should not be knocked out on the basis of technicalities---By revival of the suit the petitioners would still have the right to pursue the remedy available to them under the law, hence, no serious prejudice would have been caused to them by setting aside of the ex-parte judgment and decree---Balance to avoid prejudice to the rights of the parties tilted in favour of maintaining the decision of setting aside the ex parte proceedings and decree and revival of suit for its decision on its own merits---Even if application for condonation of delay was not decided, as proprietary rights of the parties were involved, hence it was appropriate to condone the delay in filing application for setting-aside ex parte decree and consequently order passed by both the courts below were interpreted in the manner that as while setting aside ex parte decree the courts below were conscious of pendency of the application for condonation of delay, hence the delay in filing the application for setting aside ex parte proceedings and decree although not dealt with in express terms had been impliedly condoned---Ex-parte proceedings and decree were set-aside and the suit filed by the petitioners was revived---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHUJABAD O — 2025 CLC 1737 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC