Revision Petition U/s 115 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 19.6.2001, 13.4.2001 and Ex-parte decree dated 31.7.2000 passed by Mr. Abdul Rehman Khan, the learned A.D.J. Bahawal Nagar, Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal the learned Civil Judge, Bahawal Nagar, respectively.
To set aside the both impugned orders & Ex-parte decree and petitioners be allowed to participate in the proceedings of suit accordingly.
2. That the respondent No. 1 filed a recovery suit amounting to Rs. 24,900/- as damages in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Bahawal Nagar against the petitioner and respondent No. 2. This suit was ex-parte decreed on 31.7.2000. The copies of plaint, oral evidence, documentary evidence and judgment along-with decree sheet are Annexes \u201cA, A/1, A/2 & A/3\u201d respectively.
3. That as well as the petitioners received the information of decree dated 31.7.2000 the petitioner filed an application under order 9, rule 13 along-with an application for the suspension of operation of decree on 13.11.2000, for which the reply was filed on 9.1.2001. The learned Trial Court, without framing any issue, fixed the case for arguments and on 13.4.2001, without mentioning any time upon the order sheet. In fact the application for interim relief was fixed for arguments, but the main application was dismissed as well. Copies of application, reply and order sheet are Annexes \u201cB, B/1 and B/3\u201d respectively.
4. That the petitioners filed an appeal on 12.5.2001 along-with an application after interim relief against the order dated 13.4.2001. This appeal was dismissed vide order dated 19.6.2001. The copies of Grounds of appeal, order sheet and impugned order are Annexes \u201cC, C/1 & C/2\u201d.
That during the proceedings of suit, the proper procedure for the service of petitioners was not adopted. The real sense of order 5, rules 20 & 21 C.P.C. was not taken into consideration.
That the publication in the daily \u201cSaadat\u201d was also against the provisions regarding substituted service. However, no postal certificate is tendered in the evidence.
That contents of plaint, oral evidence and documentary evidence prima facie do not create any cause for damages.
That even the petitioners were condemned unheard, however, there was no reason and material available on the file to decree the suit.
That the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree (under order 9, rule 13) was filed within limitation, but the petitioners were again condemned unheard and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution.
That the order for dismissal of application under order 9, rule 13 was premature, because the same was not fixed for hearing. On that day, the learned court had fixed the case for arguments on application for the interim relief.
That after submission of reply of application under 9, rule 13 normally issued are framed and such applications are almost decided on merits, but no issues were framed in this case.
That the learned appellate court also decided the case on technical grounds, which are always deprecated by the superior courts.
Now bringing you back...
Does that email address look wrong? Try again with a different email.