Powers of a court under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC
PLJ 1992 AJK 45 · Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court
This case involved a civil suit filed by Kashmir Steel Mills against electricity department officials, seeking a perpetual injunction. During the proceedings before the District Judge, Mirpur, the defendants failed to appear on a hearing date, so the court proceeded against them ex-parte, meaning the case continued without their side being heard, and the plaintiff was allowed to present evidence. The defendants later applied to have this ex-parte order set aside, but their application was dismissed for being improperly filed and lacking sufficient justification for their absence.
The AJK High Court examined the record and found serious problems with how the ex-parte order was made. It noted that the defendants were still in the process of being served summons and had not all been properly notified, and that the date in question was not actually a hearing date for the main suit but for a related application. The application to set aside the ex-parte order, though filed on time, was presented by an unauthorized clerk and lacked a supporting affidavit.
The Court also addressed whether the Superintending Engineer, who was not originally a party to the suit, could be added as a defendant. Relying on Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, it held that he was a necessary party whose presence was required for the court to fully resolve the dispute, and directed him to apply to be impleaded.
Ultimately, the High Court found the ex-parte proceedings unwarranted and illegal, set them aside, and allowed the petition, emphasizing that lower courts and lawyers had mishand
اس مقدمے میں کشمیر سٹیل ملز نے بجلی کے محکمے کے افسران کے خلاف دائمی حکمِ امتناعی کے حصول کے لیے دیوانی دعویٰ دائر کیا تھا۔ ضلع جج میرپور کے روبرو کارروائی کے دوران مدعا علیہان ایک سماعت کی تاریخ پر پیش نہ ہو سکے، جس پر عدالت نے ان کے خلاف یک طرفہ کارروائی کی، یعنی مقدمہ ان کا موقف سنے بغیر آگے بڑھا، اور مدعی کو شواہد پیش کرنے کی اجازت دی گئی۔ مدعا علیہان نے بعد ازاں اس یک طرفہ حکم کو کالعدم قرار دلوانے کے لیے درخواست دائر کی، مگر یہ درخواست ناقص طریقے سے دائر کی گئی اور ان کی غیر حاضری کی معقول توجیہ پیش نہ کیے جانے کے سبب مسترد کر دی گئی۔
آزاد جموں و کشمیر ہائی کورٹ نے ریکارڈ کا جائزہ لیا تو یک طرفہ حکم جاری کرنے کے طریقہ کار میں سنگین خامیاں پائیں۔ عدالت نے نوٹ کیا کہ مدعا علیہان کو ابھی سمن کی تعمیل کے مراحل سے گزارا جا رہا تھا اور سب کو باقاعدہ طور پر مطلع نہیں کیا گیا تھا، نیز یہ کہ زیرِ بحث تاریخ