BR100 Increased By (0.19%)
BR30 Decreased By (-0.02%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.19%)
KSE30 Increased By (0.21%)
AGHA 6.79 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.65%)
BECO 4.40 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.69%)
BML 56.60 Decreased By ▼ -0.72 (-1.26%)
BOP 30.45 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.33%)
CNERGY 13.14 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.15%)
CSIL 5.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.18%)
FCCL 52.95 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (0.3%)
FFL 14.84 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (0.82%)
FNEL 1.12 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KEL 6.13 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.66%)
KOSM 5.93 Increased By ▲ 0.20 (3.49%)
LOTCHEM 26.56 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.38%)
MLCF 93.64 Increased By ▲ 0.48 (0.52%)
NBP 165.00 Increased By ▲ 0.34 (0.21%)
NCPL 55.72 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.11%)
NPL 61.09 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.11%)
OGDC 315.70 Decreased By ▼ -1.03 (-0.33%)
PACE 9.94 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.71%)
PAEL 35.64 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.03%)
PIBTL 14.99 Increased By ▲ 0.31 (2.11%)
PPL 225.50 Decreased By ▼ -1.41 (-0.62%)
PRL 93.25 Increased By ▲ 0.23 (0.25%)
PTC 60.40 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (0.23%)
SSGC 23.84 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.13%)
TBL 8.83 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.91%)
TELE 7.86 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.77%)
TPL 22.62 Increased By ▲ 0.27 (1.21%)
TPLP 12.96 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.08%)
TREET 22.30 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (0.63%)
TRG 56.77 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (0.37%)

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court held that although under the Limitation Act, 1908, an appeal against an ex-parte decree can be filed within 30 days; however Article 181 of the Act provides a limitation period of three years from the date the right to sue accrues.

This provision empowers the court with the wide-ranging potential discretion to allow the application if the defendant who was declared ex-parte assigns good cause for a previous absence, the court added.

The court passed this order on a petition of Muhammad Ashfaq and others who challenged a lower courts decision which passed an ex-parte decree against the petitioners on November 22, 2023 for recovery of damages amounting to rupees twenty million.

The petitioners stance is that they are barely educated and are not familiar with the legal intricacies. They remained unaware of the developments due to collusiveness of their counsel and were ultimately proceeded against ex-parte.

The court observed that it is the right of every defendant and also a principle of natural justice, to be given a chance of hearing before any order is passed against his interest.

The court observed that if the defendants proceeded ex-parte, they may join the proceedings at any subsequent stage and file an appropriate application for setting aside ex-parte order, provided they show good cause.

The court said if good cause is shown to the court's satisfaction justifying their previous absenteeism, the ex-parte proceedings may be set aside by the court and the defendant may then be restored to the position he held before proceeding against ex-parte.

Even otherwise, in the absence of any clear provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure prohibiting the defendant's appearance and participation in the proceedings, proceed ex-parte, there can be no legal bar to allow him to defend his rights, the court observed.

The court said the suit is still pending before the trial court, and the valuable rights of the petitioners are said to be involved in the subject litigation. Therefore, in such a situation, it would be unjustified to dislodge them from the active contest based on technicalities.

The court, therefore, allowed the petition and set aside an impugned order.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed for this article.