2003 PLP 3196 (YLR)
ABID MAHMOOD‑‑‑Appellant Versus ABDUL AZIZ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 3196 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Farrukh Lateef, J |
| Parties | ABID MAHMOOD‑‑‑Appellant Versus ABDUL AZIZ‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 3196 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 3196 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Farrukh Lateef, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 3196 (YLR) (ABID MAHMOOD‑‑‑Appellant Versus ABDUL AZIZ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑O. IX, R.8‑‑‑Date fixed for filing of written statement and reply to stay application‑‑‑Dismissal of suit on such date for non‑appearance of plaintiff ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Such date was not a date of hearing‑Plaintiff could not be penalized for his or his counsel's absence on such date‑‑‑Suit could be dismissed under O.IX, R.8, C.P.C., for non‑appearance of plaintiff on date of hearing‑‑‑High Court accepted appeal and set aside impugned order.
- ‑‑‑‑O. IX, Rr.3,6,8, O.XV, R.1 & O.XVII, Rr.2, 3‑‑‑Date of hearing ‑‑‑Connotation‑‑ Hearing includes investigation of controversy, hearing of arguments, framing of issues or taking of evidence etc., and not hearing interlocutory matter‑‑‑Date on which no investigation of any matter germane to progress of suit is to be performed by Court and which is only fixed for making order of administrative nature, such as filing of written statement, replication or for altering date etc., is not a date of hearing.
- Pir Masood‑ul‑Hassan Chishti for Appellant.
- Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmad Chaudhry for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st January, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmad Chaudhry for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st January, 2003. With the concurrence of the learned counsel for the parties the appeal is treated as an admitted case.
2. Appellant had filed a suit against the respondent. The respondent had put appearance therein through counsel and 25‑6‑2002 was fixed for filing of the written statement and reply of stay application. On the said date none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Counsel for the respondent was, however, prey ant who submitted written statement as well as reply to the stay application. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court for non‑prosecution.
3. On 27‑6‑2002 an application for its restoration was moved, it was opposed by the respondent and was ultimately dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 13‑7‑2002.
4. The aforesaid order of the Additional District Judge, Sahiwal (trial Court) is assailed in this F.A.O.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned trial Court failed to note that 25‑6‑2002 was fixed for filing written statement and reply to stay application hence it was not a date of hearing and that cause for non‑appearance of the appellant and his counsel was not properly appreciated.
6. The appeal was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent who during his arguments fully supported the impugned order.
7. Arguments heard, appeal and its annexures perused.
8. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the respondent that the date on which the suit was dismissed for non prosecution was for filing of the written statement and reply to stay application. A date on which no investigation of any matter germane to the progress of the suit is to be performed by the Court and which is only fixed for making an order of an administrative nature such as filing of written statement, replication or for altering the date etc., is not a date of hearing. Hearing includes investigation of a controversy, hearing of arguments, striking off issues or taking of evidence etc. and not hearing interlocutory matter.
9. Under Order 9, rule 8, C.P.C. suit can be dismissed for non‑appearance of the plaintiff on the date of hearing. Since 25‑6‑2002 was not a date of hearing, the appellant/plaintiff could not be penalized for his or his counsel absence on the said date.
10. The impugned order is, therefore, not sustainable, it is accordingly set aside. Appeal is accepted and the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the case it accordance with law. S.A.K./A‑901/L Appeal accepted