Summary: (a) Family Courts Act, 1964 ----Ss. 9(6) & 10(5)----Ex parte decree----Withdrawal of application for setting aside ex parte decree----Effect----Scope----Petitioner filed an application under S. 9(6) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 for setting aside an ex parte decree but subsequently withdrew the same, thereby acquiescing to the decree and waiving his right to further challenge it----Filing of a subsequent application for recalling the withdrawal order on the ground that no such instructions were given to counsel was dismissed, as the petitioner’s counsel was duly engaged under O. III, R. 1, C.P.C., 1908, and his acts were binding upon the petitioner----High Court and Supreme Court held that an engaged counsel has the authority to make statements, compromise, or withdraw suits, unless explicitly restricted in the Wakalatnama----Principle of estoppel applied against the petitioner, barring him from retracting the withdrawal. Cited Cases: • Fateh Khan v. Manzoor PLD 1993 Lahore 76 • Noor Muhammad v. Muhammad Siddique 1994 SCMR 1248 • Hassan Akhtar v. Azhar Hameed PLD 2010 SC 657 • Afzal v. Abdul Ghani 2005 SCMR 946 (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ----O. III, R. 1----Authority of counsel----Binding nature of counsel's statements and actions----Scope----A party is bound by the actions and statements of its engaged counsel unless the Wakalatnama explicitly restricts such authority----Withdrawal of an application by counsel was valid and binding upon the petitioner, as engagement under O. III, R. 1, C.P.C. functions as a delegated power akin to a principal-agent relationship----Supreme Court reiterated that a duly appointed counsel’s decision to withdraw, compromise, or take any procedural steps is enforceable against the client, barring any specific limitations placed in the power of attorney. Cited Cases: • Fateh Khan v. Manzoor PLD 1993 Lahore 76 • Noor Muhammad v. Muhammad Siddique 1994 SCMR 1248 • Hassan Akhtar v. Azhar Hameed PLD 2010 SC 657 (c) Estoppel----Waiver of rights----Principle of finality of litigation----Scope ----Petitioner’s attempt to recall the withdrawal of his application for setting aside the ex parte decree was barred by the principle of estoppel----Having withdrawn the application once, petitioner could not later claim he had no intention of doing so, as such an act constituted waiver of the right to challenge the decree----Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming that subsequent attempts to retract procedural decisions taken by counsel could not be entertained. (d) Appeal----Appellate Court’s review of trial court’s findings----Concurrence with judgment----Scope ----Appellate Court reviewed and upheld the trial court’s decree as being in accordance with pleadings, evidence, and law----Supreme Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the decisions of the lower courts----Petition dismissed, leave to appeal refused. Disposition: Petition dismissed. Leave to appeal refused.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ----Arts. 185(3), 199 & Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)—Fraud—Misrepresentation—Scope of review—Ex parte proceedings—Service of notice—Presumption of correctness attached to judicial proceedings. Petitioners challenged the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, District Court, and Sindh High Court, all of which dismissed their application under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C., holding that no fraud or misrepresentation had been committed by the respondent in securing an ex parte judgment for eviction. The Rent Controller had issued notices through multiple modes, including bailiff, registered post, T.C.S., pasting on the property, and publication. Despite valid service, the petitioners failed to appear, and ex parte proceedings were rightly conducted. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation regarding the attorney's role and past litigation history were dismissed as irrelevant. The Supreme Court upheld the presumption of correctness attached to judicial proceedings and emphasized that mere allegations of fraud, without substantive evidence, are insufficient grounds to invalidate valid judicial orders. Cited Cases: Allah Dita v. Bashir Ahmed (1997 SCMR 181) Muhammad Yaqoob v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) (1981 SCMR 519) Faizur Rehman v. Rahman Ud Din alias Mirza (1997 SCMR 1301) (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----Section 12(2)—Scope of fraud and misrepresentation—Burden of proof. For an application under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C. to succeed, the petitioner must establish fraud or misrepresentation through substantive evidence. The burden lies heavily on the party alleging fraud. Failure to respond to properly served notices cannot subsequently be justified through allegations of fraud unless supported by concrete evidence. (c) Rent Restriction Ordinance—Ex parte proceedings—Validity of service. When a Rent Controller exhausts all legally recognized modes of service, including bailiff, registered post, pasting on the premises, and publication, and declares service valid, ex parte proceedings cannot be challenged on the ground of non-service. Petitioners' failure to appear after valid service constitutes willful default. (d) Administration of Justice—Presumption of correctness—Role of appellate courts. Presumption of correctness is attached to judicial orders unless successfully rebutted with evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or jurisdictional error. Appellate courts are not bound to interfere in findings of fact consistently upheld by subordinate courts unless clear perversity is shown. Disposition: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal dismissed in limine.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a civil petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court’s decision, which upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s application to set aside an ex parte decree. The respondent had filed a suit under Order XXXVII, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking recovery of Rs. 10,912,024/- based on various cheques. The trial court proceeded ex parte against the petitioner after attempted service through ordinary and substituted means, including publication. After 19 months from the decree’s issuance, the petitioner filed an application to set it aside, claiming lack of proper service. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner’s application to set aside the ex parte decree satisfied the requirements of Rule 4 of Order XXXVII, CPC, by demonstrating “special circumstances.” ----2- Whether the petitioner’s claim of non-service of summons constituted a valid ground for setting aside the decree. ----3- Whether procedural lapses or extraordinary circumstances prevented the petitioner from participating in the trial. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Service of Summons: The trial court adhered to all prescribed modes of service, including substituted service via publication in a newspaper. The petitioner failed to respond despite these efforts, leading to the ex parte decree. --Special Circumstances Under Rule 4 of Order XXXVII: The court noted that Rule 4 of Order XXXVII, CPC, permits setting aside a decree only under "special circumstances," such as serious illness, natural calamities, or procedural errors leading to injustice. The petitioner failed to demonstrate such circumstances. The petitioner’s sole claim of non-receipt of summons was deemed insufficient since the service process, including publication, had been properly executed. --Failure to File Leave to Defend: The petitioner did not file an application for leave to defend as required under Order XXXVII, which governs summary suits. This procedural lapse further weakened the petitioner’s case. --Consistency in Pleadings: The petitioner’s claim of being abroad during the proceedings was not raised in the application to set aside the decree. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that new claims cannot be introduced at advanced stages without being part of the pleadings. The petition was dismissed as no special circumstances were demonstrated, and the ex parte decree was upheld. -----Citations/Precedents: Haji Ali Khan and Company v. Allied Bank of Pakistan (PLD 1995 SC 362): Reiterated that Rule 4 of Order XXXVII applies only under "special circumstances." Sh. Fateh Muhammad v. Muhammad Adil and others (PLD 2008 SC 82): Highlighted that unsupported claims in applications cannot justify relief. Hyder Ali Bhimji v. Additional District Judge Karachi South (PLD 2012 SC 279): Emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements under Order XXXVII.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ----Arts. 10-A, 185(3) & Federal Service Tribunals Act (1973), S. 4—Disciplinary proceedings—Due process—Right of defence—Natural justice—Inquiry during incarceration—Scope of departmental and criminal proceedings. The respondent, an employee of the Intelligence Bureau (I.B.), was removed from service following an ex parte departmental inquiry conducted while he was incarcerated. The Supreme Court held that disciplinary and criminal proceedings can proceed independently and simultaneously. However, disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice and due process, ensuring a fair opportunity to defend. Conducting an inquiry during the respondent's incarceration, without affording him a reasonable opportunity to participate or defend himself, violated Article 10-A of the Constitution. The right to defend oneself in disciplinary proceedings includes personal appearance, presenting evidence, summoning witnesses, and cross-examining adverse witnesses. An inquiry conducted without adhering to these standards is rendered void and inconsequential. Cited Cases: Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer Gujrat (2022 SCMR 1770) (b) Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules—Departmental Inquiry—Right of defence—Standard of proof—Distinction between criminal trial and departmental inquiry. While criminal and departmental proceedings serve distinct purposes and have different standards of proof, a departmental inquiry must still adhere to the principles of fairness, transparency, and natural justice. The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on the "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt." However, the absence of the accused due to incarceration and the inability to respond to charges or cross-examine witnesses vitiate the proceedings and render them unfair. (c) Administration of Justice—Principles of Natural Justice—Ex parte inquiry during incarceration—Validity. An ex parte inquiry conducted against an incarcerated employee without ensuring their participation and the ability to present their defence constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. Such an inquiry cannot form the basis for imposing a major penalty like removal from service. (d) Right to Fair Trial—Scope of Article 10-A—Departmental Proceedings. Article 10-A of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process, which extends to departmental proceedings. Even in cases involving disciplined forces, adherence to procedural fairness and ensuring ample opportunity for defence are mandatory. Disposition: Civil Petition converted into an appeal and partly allowed. The reinstatement order is made subject to a de novo inquiry. The competent authority is directed to appoint an impartial inquiry officer to conduct the inquiry within three months, ensuring full compliance with the principles of natural justice and due process.

Summary: Background: The case involves a dispute over an ex-parte judgment obtained by Respondents No. 2 and 3, who had filed a suit seeking a declaration regarding inherited property. The suit was decreed ex-parte after the defendants failed to appear. The petitioner later filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the ex-parte judgment, alleging that her deceased mother was fraudulently included as a defendant in the suit and that some death certificates presented were bogus. The trial court initially admitted certain documents as evidence through a statement made by the petitioner's advocate, which were later de-exhibited upon the respondents' application. The petitioner challenged this de-exhibition in the High Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the documents admitted into evidence through the petitioner's advocate's statement could be de-exhibited. 2- Whether the trial and revisional courts properly applied judicial mind and adhered to legal principles when making their orders regarding the exhibition and de-exhibition of documents. 3-Whether the petitioner was prejudiced by the de-exhibition of documents that were crucial to her application under Section 12(2) of the Code. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court set aside the orders of the trial and revisional courts that had first allowed and then de-exhibited the documents. The court held that both courts had acted in a mechanical manner, failing to properly apply judicial principles. It was emphasized that objections to the admissibility of documents should be raised at the time they are tendered, and once marked as exhibits, the documents should not be de-exhibited unless absolutely necessary. The court further noted that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to cure any defects in the admission of evidence. The case was remanded with instructions to allow the petitioner to produce further evidence or re-examine witnesses, while giving the respondents an opportunity to cross-examine. ----Citations/Precedents: Malik Riazullah vs. Mst. Dilnasheen and Others (2018 CLC 1569) Muhammad Arif and Others vs. Aziz-ur-Rehman and Others (2023 CLC 713) Mst. Akhtar Sultana vs. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and Others (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 715) Rustam and Others vs. Jehangir (Deceased) through LRs. (2023 SCMR 730) Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. vs. Misri Khan (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 749) Gopal Das and another vs. Sri Thakurji and Others (A.I.R (30) 1943 Privy Council 83) Gulzar Hussain vs. Abdur Rehman and another (1985 SCMR 301) Mst. Akhtar Sultana vs. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and Others (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 715) N.M.S. Sadasivier Krishnier and Others vs. T.S. Meenakshi Iyer and Others (A.I.R. 1933 Madras 781) Jodhpur Gums & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors (AIR 1999 Rajasthan 38)

Summary: (a) Partition Act (IV of 1893)--- ----S. 4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 & O.IX, R. 13--- Suit for partition of dwelling house---Ex-parte decree, maintaining of---Suit was filed by respondent / plaintiff seeking partition of dwelling housing to the extent of her share---Suit was decreed ex-parte and application filed by petitioners / defendants was dismissed concurrently---Validity---Ex-parte decree could not be treated as void---Respondent / plaintiff in ex-parte decree was relying on registered deed in favour of predecessor-in-interest from whom she had been claiming accrual of right by inheritance---In written statement petitioners / defendants had relied on purchase of rights in immovable property through unregistered deed and the unregistered deed could not be proved as the petitioners / defendants did not produce any evidence in support thereof before Trial Court---Respondent / plaintiff through ex-parte evidence of had sufficiently established the case in her favour---There was no rebuttal, therefore, judgment and decree was fully justified on the basis of ex-parte evidence present before Trial Court---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the orders passed by two Courts below---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Syed Arshad Ali v. Said Ali 2018 YLR 779; Shah Qaimoos Khan and 4 others v. Faizullah Khan and another 2020 CLC 111; Messrs Rehman Weaving Factory (Regd) Bahawalnagar v. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan PLD 1981 SC 21; Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman and 3 others v. Mir Khan Muhammad Khan Jamali and another 2006 CLC 92; Honda Atlas Cars (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Honda Sarhad (Pvt) Ltd. and others 2005 SCMR 609; 2008 SCMR 287; Shahid Pervaiz alias Shahid Hameed v. Muhammad Ahmad Ameen 2006 SCMR 631; Kiramat Khan v. IG, Frontier Corps and others 2023 SCMR 866; Chief Executive Officer NPGL, GENCO-III,TPS, Muzafargarrah v. Khalid Umar Tariq Imran and others 2024 SCMR 518 and Moon Enterprises CNG Station, Rawalpindi v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited through General Manager Rawalpindi and another 2020 SCMR 300 ref. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Delaying tactics---Abuse of process of law---Remedy---Court of law can counter deliberate attempts for prolonging delays and causing abuse of process of a Court, in two ways; first to avoid unnecessary and undue leniency in the matter of setting aside those orders where the Court reaches a conclusion that the other party has deliberately absented themselves or defaulted in performance of some activities, required for further progress of suit, without any reasonable cause; secondly, when the Court is of the opinion that a party has defaulted in its duty vis-a-viz progress of suit but the Court considers that interest of justice would be served by affording further chances, then the Court should levy cost which should be sufficient for fully compensating the other party for the time and money spent by it in procuring legal assistance as well as the inconvenience caused to it due to delay in the proceedings---Imposing proper and reasonable amount of cost in such cases would not only ensure justice to affected parties but would also be working as deterrence for the party, which deliberately and maliciously employ delaying tactics, which causes undue delay in litigation---Genuine cases where a party is prevented by sufficient cause in attending to a step in litigation should however be treated differently and in such cases lenient approach should be adopted. Muhammad Amin Khattak Lachi for Petitioners. Haji Zahir Shah for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th July, 2024.

Summary: ----Quote: a. Period of limitation for filing an application for setting aside exparte decree would be governed by Article 164 of Schedule-II of Limitation Act. In both the cases where a defendant does not turn up in response to a summon or he is proceeded exparte after appearing in the court. The maximum period in such cases shall be treated as 30 days. b. Where a party to litigation makes abuse of the process of court and deliberately withheld appearance in court then imposition of the penal clauses imposed against him under CPC, Should not be lightly lifted or same should be done with levy of reasonable and substantial cost, sufficient for compensating the opposite party for the wastage of money and time spent on such litigation as well as for the inconveniences caused to him by tactics employed by the defaulting party deliberately. ----Background: The respondents filed a suit for possession through partition, seeking their share in a jointly owned house. The house was originally owned by the respondents' predecessor, and upon her death, the property devolved to her legal heirs. The petitioners, who were also co-owners, contested the suit by claiming that the house had been gifted to them and that the respondent had sold her share to one of the petitioners through an unregistered sale deed. The petitioners, however, were subsequently absent from the court proceedings, leading to an ex-parte decree in favor of the respondents. The petitioners' subsequent application to set aside the ex-parte decree was dismissed by the trial court and the appellate court, leading to the current civil revision. ----Issues: 1- Whether the application to set aside the ex-parte decree was barred by the law of limitation. 2- Whether the ex-parte decree was void due to the petitioners' claims of purchase and lack of discussion in the final order. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the civil revision, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. The court held that: The application to set aside the ex-parte decree was indeed barred by the law of limitation. The relevant limitation period was 30 days as per Article 164 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The petitioners filed their application nearly two years after the ex-parte decree, far beyond the prescribed period. The court also rejected the argument that the ex-parte decree was void. It was established that the petitioners had knowledge of the proceedings but chose to remain absent. The decree was based on sufficient evidence, including the registered deed in favor of the respondents' predecessor, while the petitioners failed to substantiate their claims with evidence. The court emphasized that leniency in setting aside ex-parte orders should be exercised cautiously to prevent abuse of the legal process. The court also highlighted the importance of imposing reasonable costs to deter delaying tactics in litigation. ----Citations/Precedents: Syed Arshad Ali vs. Said Ali (2018 YLR 779) Shah Qaimoos Khan and 4 others vs. Faizullah Khan and another (2020 CLC 111) Messrs Rehman Weaving Factory (Regd) Bahawalnagar vs. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (PLD 1981 SC 21) Honda Atlas Cars (Pakistan) Ltd vs. Honda Sarhad (Pvt) Ltd and others (2005 SCMR 609) Shahid Pervaiz alias Shahid Hameed vs. Muhammad Ahmad Ameen (2006 SCMR 631) Kiramat Khan vs. IG, Frontier Corps and others (2023 SCMR 866) Chief Executive Officer NPGL, GENCO-III, TPS, Muzafargarrah vs. Khalid Umar Tariq Imran & others (2024 SCMR 518)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199----Writ jurisdiction----Scope of interference by High Court----Concurrent findings of fact----Finality of unchallenged decree The petitioner challenged the dismissal of their objection petition in execution proceedings and the appellate court's decision. It was held that the original judgment and decree, having attained finality due to the petitioner’s failure to file an appeal against the trial court's judgment, could not be revisited in execution proceedings. The executing court cannot go behind the decree, nor can it re-examine or modify its terms. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court does not extend to disturbing concurrent findings of fact unless there is a clear case of illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional defect. Disposition: Writ petition dismissed in limine as being devoid of force. Cited Cases: Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Aziz-ur-Rehman Chaudhary (2016 SCMR 14) Syed Riaz Ahmad Shan v. Dayal Singh College Trust Society (1972 SCMR 237) Muhammad Ali v. Ghulam Sarwar (1989 SCMR 640) Mst. Naseem Akhtar v. Shalimar General Insurance Company Limited (1994 SCMR 22) Irshad Masih v. Emmanuel Masih (2014 SCMR 1481) Muhammad Tariq Khan v. Khawaja Muhammad Jawad Asami (2007 SCMR 818) Zulfiqar Ali v. Judge, Family Court (2007 MLD 1710) (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----Execution of decree----Scope of executing court----Jurisdiction limited to executing decree in its terms The petitioner argued that the decree was non-executable due to policy restrictions. The court reiterated that the executing court cannot question the validity, propriety, or correctness of a decree. Its jurisdiction is confined to implementing the decree as it stands unless the decree is patently void or a nullity. The objections raised by the petitioner amounted to indirectly challenging the original judgment, which is not permissible during execution. Disposition: Objection petition rightly dismissed as the executing court cannot go behind the decree. Cited Cases: Muhammad Ali v. Ghulam Sarwar (1989 SCMR 640) Mst. Naseem Akhtar v. Shalimar General Insurance Company Limited (1994 SCMR 22) Province of Punjab v. Burewala Textile Mills Limited (2001 SCMR 396) Tauqeer Ahmad Qureshi v. Additional District Judge, Lahore (PLD 2009 SC 760) (c) Administrative Law ----Public policy restrictions----Non-challenge of original decree----Effect on subsequent execution proceedings The petitioner raised objections based on departmental policies regarding property transfer. The court held that such objections could not override a decree that had attained finality. Administrative or policy restrictions should have been raised during the trial, and failure to do so bars the petitioner from raising them in execution proceedings. Disposition: Policy-based objections rejected as they were not raised during the trial phase. Cited Cases: Muhammad Ali v. Ghulam Sarwar (1989 SCMR 640) Allah Ditta v. Ahmed Ali Shah (2003 SCMR 1202) (d) Administration of Justice ----Finality of decree----Doctrine of past and closed transactions----Scope of objections in execution proceedings A decree that has not been challenged in the appellate stage attains finality and becomes a past and closed transaction. The executing court is duty-bound to implement it without modification. The objections raised in execution proceedings that could have been raised during the trial or appeal are inadmissible. Disposition: Decree held executable as passed, objections dismissed. Cited Cases: Muhammad Ali v. Zakir Hussain (PLD 2005 Lahore 331) Fakir Abdullah v. Government of Sindh (PLD 2001 SC 131) (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----S. 47----Objections to execution----Limited scope----When objections are permissible Objections regarding executability are only permissible if the decree is patently void, a nullity, passed without jurisdiction, or violates a legal provision. In this case, none of these exceptions were applicable. The petitioner’s objections were meritless and amounted to an attempt to delay execution. Disposition: Objections dismissed, and the decree directed to be executed in letter and spirit. Cited Cases: Tauqeer Ahmad Qureshi v. Additional District Judge, Lahore (PLD 2009 SC 760) Muhammad Tariq Khan v. Khawaja Muhammad Jawad Asami (2007 SCMR 818) Final Outcome: Writ petition dismissed in limine, and objections in execution proceedings were rejected. The decree was held executable in its original terms.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), challenging an ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Islamabad West. The judgment decreed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10 million based on a dishonored cheque issued by the appellant to the respondent. The trial court, after concluding that the appellant had failed to defend the suit, passed an ex-parte decree in favor of the respondent. The appellant sought to challenge the decree, arguing that the suit had not been properly adjudicated, and that key evidence was based on photocopies of documents rather than primary evidence. -----Issues: ---1- Whether the trial court followed proper legal procedures in decreeing the suit ex-parte. ---2- Whether the photocopies of the documents (including the agreement, cheque, and dishonor slips) used by the respondent were admissible as secondary evidence under Article 76 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. ---3- Whether the appellant was provided a fair opportunity to defend the suit, in light of the fact that he was precluded from contesting it due to the failure to submit a surety bond. ---4- Whether the trial court's ex-parte decree complied with the principles of judicial scrutiny, especially considering the appellant's defense. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, concluding that the trial court did not properly evaluate the evidence before passing the decree. The court noted the following: The documents presented by the respondent (e.g., agreement, bank deposit slips, cheque, and dishonor slips) were photocopies, and there was no compliance with the requirements for admitting secondary evidence under Article 76 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The trial court failed to properly scrutinize the admissibility and authenticity of these documents, especially the agreement which had a blank reverse side. The trial court's observation that it "had no other option" but to decree the suit reflected a mechanical approach and lack of proper judicial reasoning. The court emphasized that ex-parte judgments should still be based on sound legal reasoning and verified evidence. The appellant was not given a fair opportunity to defend the suit due to the procedural missteps involving the submission of the surety bond. The court directed the trial court to resume the case from the stage after the filing of the appellant’s written statement and to decide the matter on its merits after recording evidence from both parties. The application for leave to appear and defend the suit was deemed to have been allowed based on the surety bond provided by the appellant. -----Citations/Precedents: Misbah Khanum vs. Kamran Yaseen and another (2022 SCMR 1629) Hamid Nasrullah Ranjha vs. Civil Judge West Islamabad (2024 MLD 10) Muhammad Ijaz and another vs. Muhammad Shafi through LRs (2016 SCMR 834) Shirin and 4 others vs. Fazal Muhammad and 4 others (1995 SCMR 585) Jai Berham vs. Kedar Nath (AIR 1922 PC 269) The trial court was instructed to conclude the case within three months, ensuring that all evidence is duly scrutinized.

Summary: Muhammad Ilyas challenged the decisions of the lower courts, which had dismissed his application to set aside an ex-parte final order concerning rental premises. The Special Judge Rent in Gujranwala initially dismissed his application, and the Additional District Judge in Gujranwala subsequently dismissed his appeal. ----Issues: 1. Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the petitioner's application to set aside the ex-parte final order due to his failure to accompany it with an application for leave to contest as required by the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. ---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The court noted that, according to Section 21(4) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, a respondent against whom an ex-parte order has been passed must file a separate application for leave to contest along with the application to set aside the ex-parte order. This application must be in the prescribed form and include all necessary documentation and affidavits. In this case, the petitioner failed to file a separate application for leave to contest. Instead, he only took a specific plea in his application for setting aside the ex-parte final order. The court held that any plea on the merits of the case in the application for setting aside the ex-parte order, without an accompanying application for leave to contest, cannot be considered. Therefore, the lower appellate court's decision was found to be correct, and no interference by the High Court was warranted. ---Citations/Precedents: Section 21(4) and Section 22(3) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 which outline the procedural requirements for contesting ex-parte orders and the format of the application for leave to contest. This decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when challenging judicial or quasi-judicial decisions, particularly in matters governed by specific statutes like the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009.