Pakistan Case Law← Search
2002 CLD 1424

Mst. RAZIA AKRAM vs AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN

Citation2002 CLD 1424
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Regular First Appeal No, 547 of 2001 and Civil Miscellaneous Application
Date2002-06-03
Judge(s)Mian Saqib Nisar, Mian Hamid Farooq
ResultAppeal dismissed

ORDER

C.M. No, 2-C of 2002 ' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Despite report of the process-server, that the respondent has been served, yet through order, dated 9-5-2002, we issued the notice to the respondent: however, none represents the respondent, therefore, it is proceeded ex parte.

2. The appellant, was defendant in the suit for recovery, filed by the respondent against the appellant, who moved an application for leave to appear and defend on 2-1-2001, as the appellant or her counsel could not appear, resultantly, the application for leave to appear and defend was dismissed for non-prosecution, and the suit was decreed to the tune of Rs,2,32,961, by the Banking Court-II, Gujranwala, vide impugned order. The appellant applied for the certified copy of the order and decree on 2-7-2001, which was supplied to her the same day, and the present appeal was filed on 6-7-2001. Because the appeal was barred by time, the appellant, moved the present application for condonation of delay: it is her case, that she suffered attack of paralysis and had been under the treatment of various doctors and due to her ailment, could not file the appeal within time.

3. We are afraid, that neither there is any date of the attack of paralysis, nor there is any medical certificate appended alongwith this application, or record of the hospital showing that she was so seriously indisposed, therefore, could not apply for getting the certified copy and file the appeal within time provided.

4. In the light of above, we are not satisfied, that the appellant, has made out a sufficient cause for the purpose IA of the appeal, resultantly, this application has no merits and is hereby dismissed.

Main case ' On account of the dismissal of the application (C.M. 2-C/2001) for condonation of delay, this appeal also stands dismissed. However, as the appellant, has not been heard on merits, rather appeal is being dismissed on the ground of limitation, resultantly, at the request of the counsel for the appellant, the amount of court-fee affixed on the appeal, is directed to be returned to her.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search