PLJ 2012 Lahore 632
[Multan Bench Multan ]
[
Present: Kh. Imtiaz Ahmad, J.
ZUBAIDA
BEGUM--Petitioner
versus
FAZAL KARIM and
12 others--Respondents
C.R. No. 433-D
of 2011, decided on 20.4.2011.
Ex-parte
Proceedings--
----Suit for
partition--Application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings was dismissed--Condonation of delay--Valuable rights were
involved--Validity--It is not denied that petitioner was a co-sharer and her
share was fully protected in preliminary decree--Report of commission was
available on record which showed that property was indivisible, so auction had
been ordered that she would be entitled to receive her share--Petitioner had
filed petition for setting aside ex-parte proceedings after about 12 years and
so both Courts below committed no illegality by dismissing her petition as
being barred by time--Petition was dismissed. [P.
633] A
Mr. Muhammad Maalik Khan Langah, Advocate for
Petitioner.
Date of hearing:
20.4.2011.
Order
This civil
revision is directed against the order dated 27.11.2010 passed by the learned
Civil Judge, Class-II, Sahiwal whereby application of
the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was dismissed and the
order 4.1.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal whereby the appeal was also dismissed.
2. The relevant
facts for the disposal of this civil revision are that the respondents filed a
suit for partition with regard to disputed property in which the petitioner was
also impleaded as defendants as she was co-sharer.
She did not appear in the Court and was proceeded against ex parte on 5.5.1998.
The preliminary decree was passed on 29.09.2004 in which the petitioner was
given her due share. However, on 29.4.2010 the petitioner filed a petition for
setting aside the ex parte proceedings which was dismissed by the learned trial
Court and the appeal was also dismissed. Hence the present civil revision has
been filed. This civil revision is barred by 7 days and along with the Civil
Revision, CM. No. 2-C-2011 for condonation of delay
has also been filed. In the said petition, it is mentioned that the petitioner
is old lady and since the valuable rights of the petitioner are involved, so,
in the interest of justice, the delay if any be condoned.
3. Since it is a
civil revision wherein the legality or illegality of the impugned orders is to
be seen, so, in the interest of justice C.M.No.
2-C-2011 for condonation of delay stands accepted.
4. On merits,
learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was proceeded
against ex parte on 5.5.1998 but she had received no notice and merely on
report of Process Server substituted service of proclamation in the newspaper
was made.
5. Arguments
heard. Record perused.
6. It is not
denied that the petitioner is a co-sharer and her share is fully protected in
the preliminary decree. The report of commission is available on record which
shows that property was indivisible, so, auction has been ordered and she would
be entitled to receive her share. She had filed the petition for setting aside
the ex parte proceedings after about 12 years and so both he
Courts below committed no illegality by dismissing her petition as being barred
by time.
7. This being
so, no illegality is found in the impugned orders of both he
Courts below. Hence this civil revision has no force and the same stands
dismissed in limine.
(R.A.) Revision dismissed
No comments:
Post a Comment