1990 PLP 638 (SCMR)
Mst. SHAMSHAD BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN and 13 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 638 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SHAMSHAD BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN and 13 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (v or 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 638 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (v or 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 638 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 638 (SCMR) (Mst. SHAMSHAD BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN and 13 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑O.XLI, R.17‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Plaintiff's appeal dismissed in default of appearance by First Appellate Court and also by the High Court for the reason that plaintiff having engaged a counsel in the appellate Court to pursue the appeal, had failed to give any explanation for the absence of his counsel‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Plaintiff's plea was that she wanted to appear in Court on the relevant date of hearing so as to pursue the appeal; but on account of unfortunate incident she could not reach and thus the appeal was dismissed in her absence; had she reached the Court and had appeared, notwithstanding the absence of counsel, her appeal could not have been dismissed‑‑‑Plaintiff's further plea was that High Court had not rejected her appeal in so far as its factual aspect was concerned and that plaintiff's explanation for her absence, if accepted, would neutralise the fact of the absence of her counsel‑‑‑Such plea as also the other pleas raised in petition together with related questions including that of limitation, required examination‑‑‑ Leave to appeal was thus granted.
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 25‑10‑987 of the Lahore High Court in FA‑0. No.77 of 1987).
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal by the plaintiff side in a declaratory suit is directed; against the dismissal by the High Court, of her appear; regarding a default order passed by the learned District Court. Plaintiff's (petitioner's side) suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal the learned District Court did not decide it on merits. It was dismissed in default of appearance. The application for restoration of the appeal was also dismissed by the District Court. Accordingly the petitioner filed an F.A.O. in the High Court which having been dismissed she has sought leave to appeal. The main consideration which weighed with the learned Judge in the High Court was that the petitioner having engaged a counsel in the appellate Court to pursue the appeal, had failed to give any explanation for the absence of her counsel. Learned counsel contends that this approach of the High Court has prejudiced the petitioner and also resulted in injustice. According to him the petitioner. wanted to appear in Court on the relevant date of hearing so as to pursue the appeal; but on account of an unfortunate incident she could not reach and thus the appeal was dismissed for default in her absence. The argument proceeds that if she would have reached the Court and had appeared, notwithstanding the absence of the counsel, the appeal could not have been dismissed. On merits of this plea learned counsel contended that the High Court had not rejected it in so far as its factual aspect is concerned. It has, therefore, been submitted that the petitioner's explanation for her absence, if accepted, would neutralise the effect of the absence of her lawyer. This and the other pleas taken in this petition together with related questions including that of limitation require examination. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted. Security Rs.5,
000. Appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all essential documents. Status quo shall be maintained subject to notice. A.A./S‑428/S Leave granted