Javed Ahmad Shafqat vs Tariq Ali O — 2025 MLD 1675 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.

Javed Ahmad Shafqat VS Tariq Ali O. XXXVII, R. 4---Suit for recovery on the basis of cheque---Setting-aside of ex-parte decree, sought---"Special circumstances"---Scope---"Developing" the stance (mode of knowledge)---Effect---Defendant /judgment-debtor firstly filed application seeking setting aside ex-parte decree passed against him (first application)---While rejection of first application was pending on account of an order of Appellate Court, a mistake surfaced that decree-sheet had not been prepared by the Trial Court and (execution) proceedings turned to said issue---Defendant/judgment-debtor again filed application seeking setting aside ex-parte decree against him (second application)---Stance taken in second application by the petitioner (defendant /judgment-debtor) was that he was not served in the execution petition as well, and he was telephonically informed about the pendency of the execution petition by the clerk of an advocate who had been his counsel in the criminal trial of the FIR (qua the cheque-under-suit)registered by the respondent (plaintiff) so the said clerk was aware of the particulars of the matter---Validity---Appellant(defendant /judgment-debtor) had never set-up the said mode of knowledge in the first application---It appeared that said specific development in mode of knowledge was due to the reason that vide the judgment in the first application, the Trial Court had already observed that the appellant had given the same address that was mentioned in the suit and he had admitted that his address in the suit was correct where he was served through ordinary mode, courier service, and as per the observation of the then Judge/Trial Court, proof of the same was available---It was also evident from the record that the appellant in pursuance to the then pending execution had appeared and then kept on seeking adjournment without raising any objection---Facing said situation the appellant had modified his grounds as well as the mode of knowledge in the second application---No one should be prejudiced because of mistake of the Court, which had not prepared the decree for a long time period but this did not mean that litigant should be allowed to make developments in his case that too on the crucial points---It was not convincing that the appellant came to know about the case in the manners and on the date as pleaded in the second application; otherwise, he would have taken the said plea in his first application---Thus, second application lacked "special circumstances", which were essential to be shown for seeking setting aside the decree and for giving leave to defend, if it seemed reasonable to the Court to do so---In the absence of existence of "special circumstances" the defender of the suit of summary procedure was not entitled to be granted leave to defend or to set-aside the order assailed---Appeal filed by judgment-debtor was dismissed, in circumstances.

Javed Ahmad Shafqat vs Tariq Ali O — 2025 MLD 1675 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD