Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan:----Art. 199----Constitutional petition----Maintainability----Petitioner challenged the judgment of the Additional District Judge allowing the tenant’s appeal and remanding the case back to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision----Petitioner had filed an ejectment application under S.15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, on the grounds of willful default in payment of rent and personal bona fide need----Trial court proceeded ex parte due to the tenant’s failure to appear despite multiple service attempts----Held, the constitutional petition was maintainable as the appellate court had erred in setting aside a lawful ejectment order based on a misinterpretation of legal principles governing landlord-tenant relationships----Impugned judgment set aside, and the Rent Controller’s ejectment order restored.(b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979:----S. 15(2)(ii)----Ejectment on the ground of default----Statutory duty of tenant to pay rent----Petitioner provided evidence of non-payment of rent for nine months and failure to deposit utility bills----Held, under S.15(2)(ii), a tenant is required to remit rent within the prescribed period, failing which the tenant is liable for eviction----The petitioner discharged the burden of proof, and the respondent failed to rebut the claim or justify the default----Reliance placed on Muhammad Riaz Shaikh v. Iftikharduddin (2014 CLC 1695) and Mumtaz Sultana v. Ishrat Jehan (1989 CLC 639)----Ejectment on this ground was justified.(c) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979:----S. 15(2)(vii)----Personal bona fide need----Scope----Petitioner sought eviction on the ground of personal need----Tenant challenged the landlord’s ownership, claiming the property belonged to the petitioner’s wife and filed a suit for specific performance----Held, under S.15(2)(vii), the landlord’s family members, including spouses, are considered a single unit for the purpose of personal use, and such claims cannot be challenged by the tenant----The pendency of a civil suit for specific performance does not affect the right of the landlord to seek eviction under tenancy laws unless the tenant proves ownership in their favor----Reliance placed on Mst. Seema Begum v. Muhammad Ishaq (PLD 2009 SC 45)----Ejectment was justified.(d) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984:----Art. 115----Principle of estoppel----Tenant estopped from denying landlord's title----Held, once a person acknowledges themselves as a tenant, they are barred from denying the title of their landlord under the principle of estoppel----Tenant cannot resist eviction on the ground that another family member of the landlord holds ownership unless a decree of specific performance is passed in their favor----Reliance placed on Habib Khan v. Haji Haroon-ur-Rashid (1989 CLC 783) and Nazir Ahmad v. Mst. Sardar Bibi (1989 SCMR 913).(e) Right to Fair Trial--------Ex-parte proceedings----Effect----Tenant was served through multiple modes, including newspaper publication, but failed to appear----Held, no right to a fair trial was infringed as the tenant was given multiple opportunities to contest the claim but failed to do so----Appellate court’s decision to set aside ejectment order on this ground was unjustified----Petitioner’s evidence remained unchallenged and was sufficient to prove the claim----Impugned judgment set aside.----Cited Cases:Muhammad Riaz Shaikh v. Iftikharduddin (2014 CLC 1695)Mumtaz Sultana v. Ishrat Jehan (1989 CLC 639)Allandino v. Habib (PLD 1982 SC 465)Mst. Seema Begum v. Muhammad Ishaq (PLD 2009 SC 45)Haji Jumma Khan v. Haji Zarin Khan (PLD 1999 SC 1101)Waheed Ullah v. Rehana Nasim (2004 SCMR 1568)Muhammad Nazir v. Saeed Subhani (2002 SCMR 1540)----Disposition:Petition allowed.Judgment of the Additional District Judge set aside.Ejectment order of Rent Controller restored.

Summary: (a) Arbitration Act, 1940 – Section 14(2): ---- Filing of arbitration award in court – Party's authority to file Section 14(2) allows either the arbitrator or the parties to file the arbitration award in court. If a party files the award, the court must verify its authenticity by requesting the arbitrator to file the original award and supporting documents if needed. The dismissal of a Section 14 application solely because the award was not filed by the arbitrator constitutes a jurisdictional irregularity. (b) Arbitration Act, 1940 – Procedural safeguards: ---- Court’s duty upon filing of an award Upon the filing of an award, the court must issue notices to all parties, enabling them to raise objections. Failure to require the arbitrator to file the award while dismissing an application under Section 14 undermines procedural fairness and contravenes the scheme of the Arbitration Act, 1940. (c) Rules under Arbitration Act, 1940: ---- Rule 10(a) of Lahore High Court Rules – Filing by parties Under Rule 10(a) of the Lahore High Court Rules, a party to an arbitration may file the award in court. This provision complements Section 14(2) by allowing flexibility in filing the award when arbitrators have already provided copies to the parties. (d) Limitation Act, 1908 – Article 158: ---- Timeliness of objections to arbitration awards Under Article 158, a limitation period of 30 days applies for filing objections to an award after notice of its filing. Courts may consider objections filed after this period only in exceptional circumstances. (e) Jurisdictional irregularity: ---- Improper dismissal of Section 14 application Dismissing an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, without directing the arbitrator to file the award constitutes a jurisdictional irregularity. Courts are obligated to facilitate the enforcement process by ensuring procedural compliance. (f) Ex-parte proceedings: ---- Proceeding ex-parte against unresponsive respondents Where respondents fail to appear despite proper service of notices, including publication, courts may proceed ex-parte. However, the court must evaluate the application and evidence presented by the appellant before deciding. ----Disposition: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment of the civil court was set aside. The case was remanded for further proceedings, requiring the trial court to process the application under Section 14 and verify the award's authenticity if necessary.

Summary: (a) Limitation Act, 1908—Right to File Leave to Defend—Violation of Statutory Period----Summary proceedings under Order XXXVII, C.P.C.—Mandatory 10-day period for leave to defend—Effect of premature striking off defenceHeld, under Article 159 of the Limitation Act, 1908, read with Order XXXVII, Rule 2, C.P.C., a defendant in a summary suit is entitled to 10 days from the date of service of summons to file a Leave to Defend application—The Trial Court acted prematurely by striking off the defence of the Appellant on the 9th day instead of allowing the full statutory period to elapse—Such curtailment of time is a violation of due process and deprives the defendant of his right to contest the suit—Court must ensure that procedural safeguards are upheld before taking any coercive action—Reliance placed on Order XXXVII, Rules 2 & 3, C.P.C.(b) Service of Summons—Failure to Verify Essential Documents—Effect----Summons validity under Order XXXVII, C.P.C.—Trial Court’s reliance on incomplete serviceHeld, Order XXXVII, Rule 2, C.P.C., mandates that summons in summary suits must be served using Form No. 4 of Appendix B—Trial Court erroneously validated service despite the absence of courier receipts and acknowledgment of delivery (AD)—Simultaneously, the Trial Court continued directing the submission of these documents even after holding service as valid, raising serious concerns about the thoroughness of its evaluation—Failure to verify these essential documents before declaring service "good" violates procedural fairness and compromises the legitimacy of ex parte proceedings.(c) Summary Suits—Principle of Fair Hearing and Due Process----Fundamental right to present defence—Implications of procedural irregularitiesHeld, the right to be heard and present a defence is a fundamental due process requirement—When a statute grants a defendant a fixed period to exercise his legal rights, the court must uphold that period and not curtail it arbitrarily—Prematurely striking off the defence deprived the Appellant of his procedural right to contest the claim—Failure to follow proper service verification further weakened the Trial Court’s ex parte decision, making it legally unsustainable.(d) Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court—Intervention in Procedural Violations----Trial Court’s procedural lapses—High Court’s corrective roleHeld, the High Court has the authority to review and set aside decisions that violate procedural fairness and statutory requirements—Since the Trial Court’s actions contravened Order XXXVII, C.P.C., by striking off defence prematurely and validating incomplete service, the ex parte judgment and decree, as well as the order rejecting the defendant’s application, were set aside—Appellant granted a fresh opportunity to file Leave to Defend within 10 days.---- Disposition:First Appeal allowed—Ex parte judgment and decree set aside—Case remanded to the Trial Court for fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

Summary: Background:In the case of M/s Saeed Buksh (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Mst. Azra Bibi, the respondent filed an eviction petition under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 against the appellant. The appellant was proceeded against ex parte, resulting in the acceptance of the ejectment petition. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application seeking setting aside of the ex parte order, along with an application under sections 5 & 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay. Despite the respondent's failure to file a reply to these applications or controvert the attached affidavits, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the applications, leading to the filing of the instant appeal.----Issues:The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant was condemned unheard due to improper service of notice and whether the application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed within the prescribed limitation period. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the procedural irregularities warranted setting aside the ex parte order and remanding the case for fresh consideration.-----Holding:The Lahore High Court held that the appellant was condemned unheard due to improper service of notice, as there was no evidence to suggest that proper service had been affected. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of Audi Alteram Partem and decided to set aside the impugned order. The court also noted that the application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed within the limitation period prescribed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration.----Citations and Precedents:Abdul Karim v. Muhammad Ibrahim, 1976 SCMR 79Nasim Nizami v. Habib Bank Limited, 2006 CLC 1213-LahoreM. Imam Ud Din Janjua v. The Thal Development Authority through The Chairman, T.D.A., Jauharabad, PLD 1972 Supreme Court 123Mandi Hassan alias Mehdi Hussain and another v. Muhammad Arif, PLD 2015 Supreme Court 137Ghulam Qadir and others v. Sh. Abdul Wadood and others, PLD 2016 Supreme Court 712Allah Ditta v. Aziz Din, PLD 1981 Lahore 508

Summary: The crux of the matter revolved around the respondent's dismissal from service, which led to a grievance petition filed with the NIRC. The petitioner initially participated in the proceedings but subsequently failed to appear, leading to an ex-parte judgment against them. Efforts to set aside this judgment, including an appeal to the Full Bench of the NIRC and a constitutional petition to the Lahore High Court, were unsuccessful. One key precedent cited was "Pir Bakhsh v. the Chairman, Allotment Committee" (PLD 1987 SC 145), which the Court used to discuss the principle of res judicata, emphasizing that a judgment becomes final if not appealed within the prescribed time frame.The Court also referred to "Mukhtiar Hussain versus Mst. Shafia Bibi" (2023 SCMR 159) to illustrate the consequences of a party's deliberate abstention from proceedings and the implications for seeking relief from an ex-parte decree.In discussing the doctrine of election and the consequences of choosing one legal remedy over others, the Court cited "Trading Corporation of Pakistan versus Devan Sugar Mills Limited and others" (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 828), highlighting that once a legal route is chosen, the petitioner is barred from pursuing alternative remedies for the same cause.Furthermore, the judgment addressed the application of the Limitation Act, referring to "Allah Dino and another versus Muhammad Shah and others" (2001 SCMR 286) to clarify the conditions under which the provisions of the Limitation Act apply, particularly in relation to statutory periods of limitation.The Supreme Court also underscored the public interest in finality and certainty in legal matters, citing "Ghulam Rasool and others versus Ahmad Yar and others" (2006 SCMR 1458), "Collector Sales Tax (East), Karachi versus Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and another" (2008 SCMR 435), and "Messrs SKB-KNK Joint Venture Contractors through Regional Director versus Water and Power Development Authority and others" (2022 SCMR 1615) to emphasize the importance of adhering to limitation periods and the principle that rights accrue to the other party upon the expiry of such periods.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to grant leave to appeal. The judgment reinforced the principles of due diligence, the finality of legal decisions, and the careful selection of legal remedies, as guided by the cited precedents.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O. XXI, Rr. 89 & 90—Setting aside sale in execution—Auction of mortgaged property—Grounds for challenge—Delay in filing objections—Petitioners failed to deposit sale price despite opportunity to match highest bid—Application for setting aside sale filed nearly three years after auction—Held, objection under Order XXI Rule 90, C.P.C. was barred by time in terms of Art. 166 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which prescribes a 30-day limitation—No material irregularity or fraud established in auction process, nor any substantial injury shown—Requirements under Rule 90 C.P.C. for setting aside sale not fulfilled—High Court had rightly dismissed Execution First Appeal and objections for being time-barred and meritless. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001: ----S. 19(7)—Scope—Ex-parte decree passed in banking suit—Subsequent applications and appeals seeking to set aside auction and confirm sale—Petitioners repeatedly failed to comply with court directions and did not deposit required sums—Held, Executing Court had acted in accordance with law; no legal infirmity found in auction confirmation order—Submissions regarding undervaluation of property and misreading of evidence found baseless—High Court judgment upheld. (c) Practice and Procedure: ----Delay—Equity—Judicial discretion—Petitioners approached courts at various stages but failed to demonstrate due diligence or make timely deposits—Petitioners’ conduct disentitled them from equitable relief—No interference warranted—Petition dismissed. Petition dismissed.

Summary: Background: The petitioners filed a suit for declaration, specific performance, and injunction against the respondents before the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Rawalpindi. Due to the respondents' absence, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 7th February 2020, and the suit was decreed ex-parte on 5th July 2021. The respondents filed an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to annul the decree, which was accepted on 7th July 2023. The petitioners' revision petition against this decision was dismissed on 14th October 2023, leading to the current petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court's decision to proceed ex-parte against the respondents was lawful. 2- Whether the annulment of the ex-parte decree by the trial court and the subsequent dismissal of the revision petition by the Additional District Judge were justified. 3- Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Ex-parte Proceedings: The trial court proceeded ex-parte against the respondents due to their absence and issued a proclamation in the newspaper without proper efforts for personal service. The trial court did not follow the mandatory provisions of Order V Rules 16, 18, and 19 of the CPC, which require substantial compliance before resorting to substituted service through publication. ---Annulment of Ex-parte Decree: The respondents were residents of England, and proper service procedures, including personal service and postal communication, were not followed. The court found that the substituted service was invalid, as it was not justified by prior efforts to serve the respondents personally. Consequently, the ex-parte proceedings and decree were annulled, and this decision was affirmed by the revisional court. ---Relief under Article 199: The petitioners failed to demonstrate any material irregularity or legal perversity in the decisions of the lower courts. The petitioners' request for writ of certiorari under Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution of Pakistan was found to lack merit, as they could not show that the annulled order was without lawful authority or suffered from material illegalities. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, upholding the decisions of the lower courts to annul the ex-parte decree and denying the petitioners' request for relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. ----Citations/Precedents: Mrs. NARGIS LATIF vs Mrs. FEROZ AFAQ AHMED KHAN (2001 SCMR 99) Haji AKBAR and others vs GUL BARAN and 7 others (1996 SCMR 1703) WAPDA vs GHULAM HUSSAIN (2000 CLC 530) Syed SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH vs Messrs FEDERATION OF EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES LTD. (2003 CLC 1011) MEHR DIN through Legal Heirs vs AZIZAN and another (1994 SCMR 1110) AMJAD KHAN v. MUHAMMAD IRSHAD (DECEASED) through LRs (2020 SCMR 2155) CHIEF EXECUTIVE MEPCO and others v. MUHAMMAD FAZIL and others (2019 SCMR 919)

Summary: ''It is an oft-repeated principle of law that whenever some miscellaneous application is pending before the Court, it shall decide the same in the first stance before finalizing the lis and passing the final order/judgment. Failure to decide the miscellaneous application before passing the final verdict would render the same nullity in the eye of law. To this effect, guidance from the case of MUHAMMAD UMER vs. MUHAMMAD QASIM and another (1991 SCMR 1232).'' --- This case, Stereo.HCJDA 38, involves a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the validity of an order dated December 9, 2022. The order, issued by the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, affirmed a previous order from May 19, 2022, by the Civil Judge Class-I, Rawalpindi.The background of the case is a suit for declaration filed by respondents, claiming to be legal heirs of Arif Hussain, who passed away on November 9, 2018. The suit resulted in an ex-parte decree on March 19, 2019. The petitioners, upon learning of this, filed an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking annulment of the judgment and decree. They argued that petitioner No.1's name was included in the suit, but she never participated, and all proceedings were conducted by respondent No.1 without authorization.The trial court dismissed both the application under section 12(2) and another application for summoning a witness. The petitioners then filed a revision petition, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge.The petitioners contended that the ex-parte decree was obtained through misrepresentation, and the trial court failed to address this issue properly. They argued that the revisional court acted like a post office and did not exercise its jurisdiction.The judgment by Mirza Viqas Rauf allows the petition, setting aside the orders of December 9, 2022, and May 19, 2022. The application under section 12(2) of the CPC is deemed pending before the Senior Civil Judge, who is instructed to decide it afresh within three months from the date of the first appearance of the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Senior Civil Judge on January 10, 2024. No costs are awarded. The decision refers to legal principles emphasizing the need to decide miscellaneous applications before passing final judgments.

Summary: (a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.): ---Order IX, Rule 13, and Order V, Rule 20---Setting aside ex-parte proceedings and orders---Court held that before resorting to substituted service under Order V, Rule 20, it is mandatory to attempt personal service with due diligence. Substituted service is permissible only when the Court is satisfied that service cannot be effected through ordinary means. Failure to comply with these procedural requirements nullifies the ex-parte proceedings and orders. Substituted service serves as a tool to ensure fair communication within the justice system but must strictly follow procedural requirements. (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.): ---Section 115, Order IX, Rule 13, and inherent powers---Restoration of civil revisions---Although Section 115 does not expressly provide for restoration of revisions, inherent powers under Section 151 can be invoked to ensure justice. Courts are empowered to restore revisions under principles derived from Order IX, Rule 13, and principles of natural justice, ensuring parties are heard fairly. Restoration is permissible unless expressly prohibited by law. (c) Writ of Certiorari---Judicial discretion of revisional court: ---The revisional court invoked Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C., to restore civil revision by setting aside ex-parte proceedings and orders, providing an opportunity for hearing to the respondent. The Court held that revisional courts may adopt procedures not specifically barred, ensuring adherence to justice and fairness principles. Certiorari is not warranted unless a lower court flagrantly disregards the law. -----Disposition: The petition was dismissed, upholding the revisional court's decision to restore the civil revision for adjudication after hearing both parties in compliance with natural justice principles.

Summary: (a) Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 ----Ss. 3, 4 & 5—Non-payment of Salaries and Gratuity—Entitlement Under the Wage Board Award—Ex-Parte Proceedings—Scope—The petitioner, a former employee of the respondent newspaper establishment, filed a petition claiming unpaid salaries for five months and gratuity for five years of service—The respondent establishment failed to appear or provide any rebuttal despite repeated notices and was proceeded against ex-parte—Held, the petitioner successfully established his claim through an affidavit and supporting documents—Under the provisions of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, employees are entitled to unpaid salaries and gratuity if the employer defaults on their obligations—The Tribunal accepted the petitioner’s claims, directing the respondent to pay PKR 350,000/- as unpaid salaries and gratuity within thirty days. (b) Labour and Employment Law ----Failure to Comply with Wage Board Award—Employer's Obligation—An employer is obligated to comply with the provisions of the Wage Board Awards applicable to newspaper employees—Failure to honor salary increments and gratuity payments amounts to a violation of statutory obligations—In the present case, despite repeated reminders and legal notices, the employer failed to fulfill their statutory obligations, justifying the Tribunal’s order in favor of the petitioner. (c) Ex-Parte Proceedings ----Effect of Non-Appearance Before Tribunal—If a respondent, despite repeated notices, fails to appear or present their case, the Tribunal is justified in proceeding ex-parte—In the absence of rebuttal or any defense, the petitioner’s claims, supported by an affidavit and relevant evidence, are deemed established—The Tribunal rightly proceeded ex-parte against the respondent establishment and passed the order based on available evidence. (d) Administration of Justice ----Timely Payment of Wages and Gratuity—Employer's Responsibility—Ensuring timely payment of wages and gratuity is a fundamental obligation of employers under labor laws—Failure to fulfill such obligations not only violates statutory provisions but also results in financial and emotional distress to employees—The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory obligations for fair labor practices. Disposition: Petition allowed—Respondent directed to pay PKR 350,000/- to the petitioner within thirty (30) days—Compliance report to be submitted to the Registrar of the Tribunal—Office directed to send certified copies of the order to the parties via UMS (Urgent Mail Service).