Summary: Background: The case involves a dispute arising from rental agreements over three shops in Muzaffarabad, Azad Jammu & Kashmir. The appellant, Arshad Rafique Abbasi, filed an application before the Rent Controller alleging interference by respondent No. 1, Syed Sadiq Hussain Shah, regarding his rental rights under an agreement dated 01.05.2017. The Rent Controller initially granted a stay order in favor of the appellant, which was subsequently challenged by respondent No. 1 through a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court, in its judgment dated 31.10.2019, set aside the Rent Controller's order. -----Issues: 1- Whether the High Court properly exercised jurisdiction in quashing the Rent Controller's order. 2- Whether the appellant was denied a fair hearing, violating principles of natural justice. 3- Whether the appellant's appeal was properly dismissed for non-appearance and procedural negligence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that: The High Court correctly exercised jurisdiction in reviewing the Rent Controller's order under the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Rent Restriction Act, 1986. The appellant's claim of lack of jurisdiction by the High Court was unsubstantiated. The appellant's failure to appear and defend his case before the High Court, as noted in the ex-parte proceedings, constituted negligence. ----Citations/Precedents: Azad Jammu & Kashmir Rent Restriction Act, 1986

Summary: ''Discussion: (1) The resolution of disputes through arbitration often proves to be speedier than Court litigation which is also a form of alternative dispute resolution. (2) Section 13, 30 & 35 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. (3) What is misconduct of Arbitrator for setting aside the award by the Court.'' --- Facts:The respondent initiated a suit for specific performance based on an agreement to sell dated 27.05.2004 against the petitioner and another party. The petitioner sought arbitration per the agreement, leading to the appointment of an Arbitrator.The Arbitrator proceeded ex-parte and announced an award on 27.02.2017, which the petitioner sought to set aside, arguing he was not given a proper defense opportunity. The trial court set aside the ex-parte proceedings but upheld the award. The petitioner's appeals were dismissed by the Islamabad High Court, maintaining the award.---Issue:Whether the Arbitrator's conduct in proceeding ex-parte and the subsequent upholding of the award by the trial and appellate courts were justified.---Holding:The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, refusing leave to appeal, and upheld the decision of the Islamabad High Court.---Rationale:The Court found no dispute regarding the Arbitrator's appointment and noted that the Arbitrator was nominated at the petitioner's behest.The Court determined that the petitioner was given opportunities to participate in the arbitration proceedings but failed to do so, leading to ex-parte proceedings rightfully initiated by the Arbitrator.The petitioner failed to demonstrate any misconduct by the Arbitrator or any significant legal or factual errors in the award that would merit its setting aside.The Court emphasized the principle that arbitration, as a chosen forum by the parties, should not be lightly interfered with by the courts, except where clear cases of misconduct or legal errors are evident.---Decision:The Supreme Court found the arbitration process and the subsequent judicial reviews to have been conducted appropriately, without any procedural or substantive errors that would warrant overturning the award.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O. IX, R. 13---Application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree---Limitation---Duty of the court to examine limitation even if not raised as an objection---Suit for possession through pre-emption was decreed ex parte against the petitioners after they failed to appear and cross-examine witnesses---Petitioners filed an application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree after an inordinate and unexplained delay, without an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay---Held, under Article 164 of the Limitation Act, an application for setting aside an ex parte decree must be filed within 30 days from the date of judgment or from the date of knowledge in cases of non-service of summons---Petitioners were duly served and had initially filed their written statement, making the application time-barred---Supreme Court precedent established that courts must dismiss time-barred applications even if no party raises an objection---Both lower courts had rightly rejected the application on limitation grounds. ----Cited Cases: • Government of N.W.F.P. and others v. Akbar Shah and others (2010 SCMR 1408) • Muhammad Sami v. Additional District Judge, Sargodha and 2 others (2007 SCMR 621) • Faizum alias Toor v. Nander Khan and others (2006 SCMR 1931) • Almas Ahmad Fiaz v. Secretary Government of the Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Development, Lahore and another (2006 SCMR 783) (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908): ----S. 3, Art. 164---Duty of court to examine limitation---Even a void order must be challenged within the prescribed limitation period---Petitioners’ application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed after a considerable delay without a reasonable explanation---Held, each day of delay must be explained for condonation, and failure to do so results in dismissal---The Supreme Court has ruled that even void orders must be challenged within the limitation period---Petitioners’ conduct was held to be negligent and contumacious, justifying rejection of their application. ----Cited Cases: • Saqib Ali v. Government of Punjab and others (2023 PLC (C.S.) 310) • Lal Khan through legal heirs v. Muhammad Yousaf through legal heirs (PLD 2011 SC 657) • Chief Engineer, Gujranwala Electric Power Company (GEPCO), Gujranwala v. Khalid Mehmood and others (2023 PLC 65) • Abid Hussain v. Secretary Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan through Chief of Air Staff, Islamabad (2021 SCMR 645) (c) Constitutional Jurisdiction: ----Art. 199---Exercise of discretionary and equitable jurisdiction---Scope of judicial review---High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is discretionary and cannot be exercised as a matter of routine---Held, the petitioners failed to point out any jurisdictional defect or procedural impropriety in the impugned judgments, decrees, or orders---In the absence of a substantial legal question, constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to reappraise evidence or reconsider a time-barred claim---Petition was dismissed in limine. ----Cited Cases: • Abdul Rashid v. Pakistan and others (1969 SCMR 141) • Federation of Pakistan and others v. Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan and others (PLD 1989 SC 166) • Muhammad Maqsood Sabir Ansari v. District Returning Officer, Kasur and others (PLD 2009 SC 28) • Javed Masih and others v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others (2010 SCMR 795) ----Disposition: Petition dismissed in limine.

Summary: Background: The case revolves around Abdul Ghaffar (Appellant) suing Muhammad Ayub and another (Respondents) for the recovery of Rs. 10,000,000 (Ten Million Rupees). The appellant claimed that the respondents requested a loan of this amount, which was allegedly provided via cash and bank transfers. Following the respondents' denial of this agreement and claims of forgery, the trial court initially decreed the suit ex-parte but later set this aside, leading to a full trial. The trial court dismissed the suit after considering the evidence, and the decision was appealed. ---Issues: 1. The core issues addressed in the appellate court were:Whether the appellant actually extended a Rs. 10 Million loan to the respondents.2. Whether the appellant successfully proved the existence and authenticity of the promissory notes and the agreement allegedly signed by the respondents. ---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss the appellant's suit. The court found that the appellant failed to substantiate his claims of lending the money to the respondents. Key points included:The signatures on the promissory notes and agreement did not match those of the respondents, as per forensic analysis.There was no corroborating evidence to support the appellant's claims of transferring money or the respondents' involvement in the transactions described.Doubts were raised about the authenticity of the agreement and the appellant's financial capacity to provide such a loan.The appellate court concluded that the appellant did not meet the burden of proof required under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the initial presumption of the execution of the promissory notes was effectively rebutted. The appeal was dismissed. ---Citations/Precedents: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118: Establishes the presumption of consideration for negotiable instruments but notes that this is a rebuttable presumption.Ghulam Murtaza v. Muhammad Rafi: Cited for the principle that the presumption under Section 118 is not conclusive and the plaintiff bears the initial burden of proving the execution of a negotiable instrument was for consideration.Order XXXVII, C.P.C.Article 60 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984: Pertains to the analysis and verification of disputed documents.FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) Opinion: Played a critical role in determining the authenticity of the signatures on the contested documents.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenging an appellate court's order that restored the execution petition filed by respondent No.3. The respondent, who had filed a suit for recovery of dower, initially received an ex-parte judgment awarding partial recovery. This decision was overturned by the appellate court, and upon further appeal, the High Court granted the respondent full recovery rights. Despite this, the petitioner contested the execution petition filed by respondent No.3 on grounds of limitation, which the executing court upheld. However, the appellate court later allowed the respondent’s appeal and restored her execution petition, prompting the current petition from the petitioner. -----Issues: 1- What is the applicable limitation period for filing an execution petition to recover a dower decree? ----2- Was the appellate court justified in condoning the delay and allowing the respondent’s appeal? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Limitation for Execution of Dower Decree: The court held that, under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, no specific limitation applies to family matters, including the execution of a dower decree. In line with precedent (e.g., Syed Muhammad vs. Mst. Zeenat), a wife’s right to dower during the subsistence of marriage does not expire. Therefore, her execution petition could not be dismissed based on time-bar, as the law permits recovery of dower without strict time constraints. --Delay Condonation by the Appellate Court: The court found that the appellate court acted within its jurisdiction in condoning the delay. As the respondent submitted a delay condonation application with a supporting affidavit that went unchallenged, it was deemed true. In family law cases, courts prioritize substantial justice over technicalities, allowing flexibility in procedural timelines where the merits of the case so demand. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the respondent’s execution petition is timely and should proceed without limitations or undue procedural obstacles. -----Citations/Precedents: NEMATULLAH KHAN vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS (2022 YLR NOTE 21) KHUDADAD vs. SYED GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH ALIAS S. INAAM HUSSAIN AND OTHERS (2022 SCMR 933) MUHAMMAD SHARIF & OTHERS vs. MCB BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS (2021 SCMR 1158) HAJI WAJDAD vs. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY BOARD OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA AND OTHERS (2020 SCMR 2046) STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH GOVERNOR AND ANOTHER vs. IMTIAZ ALI KHAN AND OTHERS (2012 SCMR 280) LT. COL. NASIR MALIK vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND OTHERS (2016 SCMR 1821) SYED MUHAMMAD vs. MST. ZEENAT & OTHERS (PLD 2001 SC 128) MAQSOOD PERVAIZ CHAUDHRY vs. MST. NOSHEEN CHAUDHRY & OTHERS (PLD 2019 LAHORE 102) PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR AND OTHERS vs. MUHAMMAD FAROOQ AND OTHERS (PLD 2010 SC 582) MST. YASMEEN BIBI vs. MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR KHAN AND OTHERS (PLD 2016 SC 613) CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY vs. PROVIDENCE AVIATION (PVT) LTD. (2000 CLC 1722) MANAGER, JAMMU & KASHMIR, STATE PROPERTY IN PAKISTAN vs. KHUDA YAR (PLD 1975 SC 678)

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of dowry articles, which was decreed ex-parte by the Trial Court on 16.01.2019 due to the absence of the respondent. The respondent later challenged the ex-parte judgment by filing an appeal, which was delayed by 98 days. Despite this delay, the Appellate Court accepted the appeal, set aside the ex-parte judgment, and remanded the case to the Trial Court for fresh proceedings. The petitioner contended that the appeal should not have been allowed due to the respondent's prior statement in the Executing Court, where he expressed willingness to return the dowry articles, and because the appeal was time-barred. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Appellate Court’s remand order is legally valid and amenable to constitutional jurisdiction. 2- Whether the respondent’s appeal, which was delayed by 98 days, was maintainable. 3- Whether the respondent’s conduct and prior statements should preclude him from obtaining relief. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court held that the Appellate Court erred in its judgment by failing to address the issue of the delay in filing the appeal and by not considering the respondent's conduct in the Executing Court. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the remand order, and directed the Appellate Court to reconsider the appeal. The Court emphasized that the law of limitation is not a mere technicality and must be applied strictly. Since the respondent’s appeal was time-barred by 98 days, the delay required proper justification, which the Appellate Court failed to consider adequately. The respondent had made a binding statement in the Executing Court on 24.04.2019, agreeing to return the dowry articles. The High Court found that this statement should have been given more weight, especially since the respondent had not fulfilled his commitment and later filed an appeal without disclosing this fact to the Appellate Court. The High Court noted that the conduct of the respondent—evading the return of dowry articles and disappearing during the bailiff’s attempt to enforce the Court’s order—was improper and relevant to the decision. The Court emphasized that it must take into account the conduct of the parties when exercising constitutional jurisdiction. The Court also rejected the respondent's argument that the admission of the appeal automatically settled the limitation issue, finding that the Appellate Court did not properly adjudicate the limitation question. The High Court found that the Appellate Court’s remand order was flawed as it did not address the question of limitation or the respondent’s conduct and statement in the Executing Court. Outcome: The High Court allowed the constitutional petition, set aside the remand order of the Appellate Court, and directed the Appellate Court to reconsider the appeal, specifically addressing the issues of limitation and the respondent's conduct. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Nadira Shahzad v. Mubashir Ahmad and others (1995 SCMR 1419) Fateh Sher v. Sarfraz and others (1986 SCMR 1356) Mst. Salim-un-Nisa and others v. Aziz and another [2009 CLC 860 (Peshawar)] Amir Shahzad v. Additional District Judge, Multan and 2 others [2015 CLC 632 (Lahore)] Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and others (PLD 2021 SC 715)

Summary: when the defendant does not appear despite being duly served, the court can proceed ex parte and pass a decree based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff. However, the court should not act mechanically but rather consider the legal and factual aspects of the case. The court noted that documents concerning financial and future obligations require attestation by two witnesses, as per the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The party relying on such documents must produce the two marginal witnesses in court to prove their execution. In this case, the petitioners failed to provide proper evidence and witnesses to confirm the execution of the documents relied upon, and they did not meet the requirements of the law. Based on the findings of the trial court and the subsequent dismissal of the suit by the appellate courts, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal. The court concluded that the petitioners had abused the process of law by filing vexatious and frivolous claims, imposing costs of Rs. 100,000/- on them. The costs were to be deposited in a charitable organization of the petitioners' choice within one month.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a constitutional petition challenging the Rent Tribunal Faisalabad's order dated 12.11.2022, which had dismissed his application to set aside ex-parte proceedings and leave to contest an eviction petition filed by respondent No.1. The petitioner argued that he was not properly served notice in accordance with Section 21 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, and that the Rent Tribunal's proceedings against him were unjust. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner was properly served in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. 2- Whether the Rent Tribunal could proceed ex-parte without satisfying the necessary procedural requirements. 3- Whether the denial of the petitioner's application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings violated his right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Improper Service: The court found that the Rent Tribunal had not followed the mandatory requirements of serving the petitioner through all the modes of service, including courier, as required under Section 21 of the Act. There was no evidence that copies of the application and attached documents were served to the petitioner, nor was there sufficient proof that the acknowledgment due had been received back. Fair Trial Violation: The court highlighted that the petitioner's right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution was violated because the Rent Tribunal failed to ensure proper service before proceeding ex-parte. The principle of a fair trial must be upheld, particularly in cases where procedural requirements are critical to ensuring justice. The writ petition was allowed. The court set aside the Rent Tribunal's order dated 12.11.2022 and restored the petitioner's application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings. The petitioner's application for leave to contest the eviction petition was deemed to be pending for further decision by the Rent Tribunal. -----Citations/Precedents: Naveed Asghar and 2 others v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600) Mst. Bibi Fatima v. Muhammad Sarwar (2022 SCMR 870)

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged an order by the Senior Civil Judge (Family Division), Khanewal, which dismissed her application to set aside an ex-parte judgment and decree concerning the custody of a minor. The petitioner argued that the ex-parte decree was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation as the respondent had filed a second application for custody without disclosing the earlier one and misrepresented the petitioner’s address. The petitioner claimed that she was never personally served and had no knowledge of the proceedings. ----Issues: 1- Whether the ex-parte judgment and decree were obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment of facts. 2- Whether the petitioner was properly served in accordance with the law before the ex-parte decree was passed. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the petitioner’s application to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. The court held that without proper service of summons and an adequate opportunity for the petitioner to be heard, the ex-parte decree could not stand. The process server was not produced to establish personal service, and the court had incorrectly presumed service based on postal receipts and newspaper publication. Given these procedural flaws, the ex-parte judgment and decree were set aside, and the case was transferred to a family court in the petitioner’s home district for fresh adjudication on merit, focusing on the welfare of the minor. ----Citations/Precedents Sardar Hussain v. Mst. Parveen Umer (PLD 2004 SC 357) Mst. Razia Bibi v. Riaz Ahmad (2004 SCMR 821) Mirajam Aberras Lehdeaho v. SHO, Police Station Chung (2018 SCMR 427) Yaqoob Ali through LRs v. Muhammad Ayub (PLD 2021 Lahore 678) Ahmed Khan v. Haji Muhammad Qassim (2002 SCMR 664) Mehr Din through Legal Heirs v. Azizan (1994 SCMR 1110) Pehalwan Khan v. Mrs. Najma Mujtaba (1986 CLC 1735) Muhammad Asghar v. Qamar Din (PLD 2005 Lahore 240)

Summary: Background: The appellant obtained an ex-parte judgment and decree on 15.01.2008 for possession of land. The respondent, claiming to be 105 years old and blind, later filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for the cancellation of the ex-parte decree, alleging that he never engaged a counsel nor appeared in court. The trial court dismissed the respondent’s application for lack of proof. The respondent then appealed to the District Judge, who accepted the appeal, set aside the trial court’s order, and remanded the case for fresh decision after allowing the respondent to present further evidence. The appellant subsequently filed the present appeal challenging the District Judge’s decision. ----Issues: 1- Jurisdiction: Whether the appeal filed by the appellant against the District Judge's decision was maintainable. 2- Opportunity to Present Evidence: Whether the District Judge was justified in allowing the respondent to present further evidence after the trial court dismissed the application for lack of proof. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Opportunity to Present Evidence: The High Court held that the District Judge was justified in allowing the respondent to present further evidence. The trial court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence that was already presented, and the serious allegations made by the respondent warranted further examination. The court emphasized the principle that cases should be decided on their merits and that parties should be given reasonable opportunities to present their cases. Jurisdiction: The High Court ruled that the appeal filed by the appellant was not competent because an appeal against an order under Section 12(2) CPC is not provided for in the statute. Instead, such orders should be challenged through a revision petition. However, since the District Judge had entertained the appeal and treated it as a revision, the High Court upheld the District Judge’s decision. ----Citations/Precedents: 2014 MLD 109: Discusses the treatment of appeals as revisions when the first appellate court entertains and decides a matter as an appeal.