Rana Zafarullah vs Abdul Ghafoor Ss — 2025 MLD 1913 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.

Rana Zafarullah VS Abdul Ghafoor Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.7---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 181---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Suit for declaration and injunction---Ex-parte proceedings, setting aside of---Ex-parte order against the defendant---Failure to appear before the Court within time---Application under O.IX, R. 7, C.P.C., by the defendant, filing of---Limitation---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Defendant/ petitioner was proceeded ex-parte and his application under O. IX, R.7 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking to set aside ex-parte order was allowed by the Trial Court---Said order was set aside by the Revisional Court by dismissing the very application for setting aside of ex-parte order being time barred---Validity---On 07.02.2012, respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration, permanent injunction along with cancellation of documents, wherein all the defendants appeared and filed their written statements except present petitioner, who was defendant No.5 in the said suit---Trial Court issued process for procuring representation of the petitioner and eventually he was directed to be served through publication in the newspaper, but he did not bother to appear and vide order dated 09.07.2012, ex-parte proceedings were carried out against him by the Trial Court---After elapse of twelve years, the petitioner moved an application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings, which was accepted by the Trial Court vide order dated 26.04.2024---However, in revision petition filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff, said order was set-aside by the revisional Court in terms of order dated 13.11.2024 holding that the application filed by the petitioner was hopelessly time barred---Ex-parte proceedings could be set-aside only within the prescribed limitation period, except in cases where lack of proper service was conclusively established---In the present case, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside ex- parte proceedings after 12 years, which was far beyond the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1908 and no justifiable grounds existed for condoning such an excessive delay---No cogent evidence had been provided to establish misrepresentation on the part of private respondent/plaintiff---Moreover, law favoured vigilant and not the indolent---Constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 could not be invoked as a substitute for ordinary legal remedies, particularly where a petitioner had failed to pursue the available legal options within the prescribed statutory timeframe---Revisional Court correctly dismissed the application, as no jurisdictional defect or violation of fundamental rights had been demonstrated---Furthermore, any ongoing civil litigation between private parties before the Civil Court was separate from the petitioner's case and should have no legal consequence for him---Therefore, attempt of petitioner to challenge the ex-parte proceedings at this stage was legally unsustainable---High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction is not supposed to interfere in the findings on the controversial question of facts---Scope of the judicial review of the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution in such cases, is limited to the extent of misreading or non-reading of evidence or if the finding is based on no evidence, which may cause miscarriage of justice---It was not proper for the High Court to disturb the finding of fact through reappraisal of evidence in writ jurisdiction or exercise this jurisdiction as a substitute of revision petition or appeal---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Rana Zafarullah vs Abdul Ghafoor Ss — 2025 MLD 1913 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD