- No cogent reasons shown — Ex-parte order maintained and respondent not allowed to file concise statement. Muhammad Yunus v. Azad Govt 1992 SCR 340 (B)
- Ex-parte Order vacation of — If an ex-parte order has been passed against a defendant he cannot ask for re-opening of the proceedings unless he shows sufficient cause but he can join at anytime from the stage which has already been reached. The purpose to be thus achieved is that process of law is not hindered — This principle has to be liberally construed as it favours decision on merits which is the policy of law — Further held: That the principle that a defendant can join at hearing of the case from the stage of appearance is the reference to the stage of the case and not of a particular defendant or respondent. M/s Amin Spining v. NBP of Pakistan 1996 SCR 252 (A)
- If an ex parte order is passed against any party to the litigation, such party under the provisions of C.P.C can join the rest of proceedings without getting such order vacated — If such party wants to do something for his benefit which on account of his absence could not be done when ex- parte order was recorded against him, then he shall have to satisfy the Court that on account of un-avoidable circumstances he failed to appear before the Court on the relevant date — Any cause brought before a court is dismissed for want of jurisdiction the same cannot be restored in routine — Such party has to disclose and prove that there were sufficient reasons which prevented it from appearing before the Court on the date fixed for hearing. AJ&K Council & another v. Muhammad Ishaq 2005 SCR 292 (B)
error: Content is protected !!