Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Order Sheet in The Lahore High Court Lahore W.P.No.62948 of 2020
Order Sheet in The Lahore High Court Lahore W.P.No.62948 of 2020
HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
W.P.No.62948 of 2020
Capt. Umer Naveed Pirzada Vs. Rana Abdur Raheem etc.
S. No. of Date of Order with signature of Judge, and that of
order/ order/ parties or counsel, where necessary
Proceeding Proceeding
03.12.2020 M/s. Jahangir A. Jhojha & Iftikhar Ahmed Chohan, Advocates for
petitioners.
allowing application u/s 12(2) read with o.IX r. 13 of the Code, 1908
Overseas Pakistani had been residing in USA for the last more than
three decades and the suit area vested to him through inheritance. He
The latter on its basis filed the suit for specific performance against
fact and record, respondent No.1 or his alleged attorney Rana Abdul
Ghafoor (who died before institution of suit, but even then added in
had deliberately avoided to receive the same, ordered for effecting his
him and the decree in absentia of respondent No.1 qua his valuable
period, the said proceedings and decree faced to him, who tabled
application for its setting aside asserting that Rana Abdul Ghafoor was
not his agent, that agency in between them had never constituted, that
neither his service was effected nor he ever directed any Advocate to
represent him in the suit filed by petitioner and that ex parte decree
specific stance that respondent No.1 for the last more than ten years
The learned Civil Court having such pleadings, formulated issues and
out of those, issue No.1 being important for ready reference is given
below:-
After receiving evidence in pros & cons, the Courts below unanimously
set aside the ex parte proceedings and the decree through orders
W.P.No.62948 of 2020 3
Chohan, Advocate took their maximum time to argue the case and
provided enough proof that his address mentioned in the plaint was
decree to rebut the same. He himself did not appear, rather on his
behalf his attorney (RW1) mainly stated that respondent No.1 was in
respondent No.1 given in said documents, which under the law bear
that respondent No.1 had been residing at the abode, which was
authorized counsel, there left nothing to prove that his service was not
effected is not well founded for the counts; firstly, there is no backing
could not be bound by it; and thirdly Mr. Ijaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate
decree was sufficient for the Courts to draw hostile inference under
had he been examined, he might have gone adverse to the stance of the
respondent No.1 in some other cases was not enough to protect the ex
parte proceedings & decree passed in the case in hand. The production
of document and proof of its contents are two different subjects and,
indeed, latter aspect is the crucial to be proved. When Mr. Jhojha was
asked why the Advocate, who filed the Memo was not summoned, he
established by now that sine qua non for the beneficiary to examine the
performing within the parameters of the law & law alone. For their any
prejudiced.
grabbers or snatchers, therefore, the such like cases are to be dealt with
extra care. The case in hand could be an example of those wherein, the
respondent No.1 was sued while giving a fake address. Moreover, the
Abdul Ghafoor, who had already passed away, was not proceedable
until and unless his LRS were impleaded. It is well established by now
that decree against dead person is, otherwise nullity in the eye of
law.These all questions are yet to be decided and the suit of the
prejudice is caused to him, who can still prove his agreement to sell
well.
his best, but failed to persuade that either the impugned orders are
Courts below after appreciating each and every aspect of the case and