The Jurists' Bureau

28/10/2025

27/10/2025

Solution of your dispute through ADR.
No Litigation - No wastage of Time

26/10/2025

File your tax return in time, otherwise it's bad music you one sensible can't afford.

26/10/2025

Your Only Trusted Legal Consultants

25/10/2025

For Trusted services

24/10/2025

Join us

20/10/2025

Please join us for professional services

15/10/2025

Following the requests of trade bodies and Tax Bar Association.

14/07/2025

قانون کے مطابق پنجاب پولیس کے زیر استعمال مختلف رجسٹر

04/07/2025

゚viralfbreelsfypシ゚viral ゚viralシ ゚

01/04/2025

2025 SCMR 60
PLJ 2025 SC 134
Rule 4 of Order ###VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, empowers the court to set aside a decree under ‘special circumstances’ and grant the defendant leave to appear and defend the suit. This provision applies in cases where the defendant fails to appear and subsequently files an application for leave to defend. However, in the present case, the petitioner did not file an application for leave to appear and defend but instead submitted an application solely for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, without challenging the order initiating ex-parte proceedings.

Under Rule 4 of Order ###VII, the court's power to set aside a decree is contingent upon the existence of ‘special circumstances.’ A plain reading of this provision makes it evident that it excludes ‘ordinary circumstances’ or situations that commonly occur. Consequently, the burden lies heavily on the defendant to establish the exceptional reasons that prevented their appearance during the proceedings. ‘Special circumstances’ are distinct from routine occurrences and refer to rare, extraordinary situations beyond human control. These may include:

Serious illness or an accident preventing the defendant from appearing;

Death or sudden incapacitation of the defendant’s counsel;

Natural calamities or unforeseen events;

A mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

Failure of justice due to non-service or inadequate service of summons.

In the present case, as noted, the trial court exhausted all possible and legally prescribed modes of service, including substituted service. Despite this, the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings. Furthermore, the petitioner’s application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree failed to demonstrate any ‘special circumstances.’ Instead, the only ground raised was:

یہ کہ مقدمہ عنوان بالا میں سائل/مدعاعلیہ کی کسی بھی طریقے سے تعمیل نہ ہوئی ہے

This argument holds no merit, particularly when the petitioner’s address, as stated in the suit, matches the address provided in their own application.


Civil Petition Nos. 1970-L of 2024
Muhammad Mansab vs. Muhammad Hanif

31/03/2025

PLJ 2025 Lahore 244
Article 128 of QSO.
Birth During Marriage – Conclusive Proof of Legitimacy & DNA Analysis in Maintenance Suits

Under Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, a child born to a woman during a valid marriage or within two years after its dissolution is deemed conclusively legitimate, provided that the mother remains unmarried after the divorce. This provision establishes a strict legal presumption, barring any contrary evidence to dispute the child's legitimacy.

Furthermore, Article 2(f)(9) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 stipulates that when a fact is declared to be conclusive proof of another, the court must treat it as established and shall not permit any evidence to disprove it. Accordingly, once the commencement and dissolution of marriage, along with the child’s birth within the prescribed period, are proven, the court cannot entertain any challenge to the child’s legitimacy.

However, Article 128(1)(a) recognizes that under certain circumstances, a husband may disown the paternity of a child. The timing of such denial is a crucial legal consideration. The West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariah) Application Act, 1962 (Act V of 1962) also holds significance in determining the applicability of such claims.