1998CLC1016 (PLP)
Mrs. RUBINA NAEEM‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. NOOR BAI‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998CLC1016 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ahmad Memon, J |
| Parties | Mrs. RUBINA NAEEM‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. NOOR BAI‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998CLC1016 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998CLC1016 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mushtaq Ahmad Memon, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998CLC1016 (PLP) (Mrs. RUBINA NAEEM‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. NOOR BAI‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑S. 21‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, Rr.17 & 19‑‑‑Dismissal of appeal for non‑prosecution‑‑‑Restoration‑‑‑On date fixed for hearing of appeal counsel for appellant sought time to prepare and argue on the question of limitation pointed out by office and case was adjourned for a fixed date‑‑‑Case was called twice on date fixed for hearing but neither appellant nor his counsel having turned up to prosecute the matter, appeal was dismissed for non- prosecution‑‑‑If counsel for appellant was busy before other Benches, he could have left some intimation to that effect‑‑‑Despite knowledge about date of hearing, application for restoration of appeal was filed after 49 days‑‑ Application for restoration of appeal, though could have been filed within three years but delay in filing application must be accounted for, particularly so when date of hearing was known to the party or his counsel‑‑‑Justification offered on behalf of appellant for absence on date of hearing, being not sufficient, application for restoration of appeal, was liable to be dismissed.
- Aga Faquir Muhammad and S. Maqsoom Hassan Rizvi for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
This is an application for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 26‑5‑1997. This application, which was filed on 14‑7‑1997, is supported by the personal affidavit of learned counsel for the appellant and another affidavit by the appellant herself. It is stated in the affidavit of the learned counsel that on 26‑5‑1997 he was busy before other Benches, and therefore, could not appear in this matter. In the affidavit of the appellant; it is stated that she was not aware of the fixation of appeal on 26‑5‑1997 and her counsel is a very busy Advocate and therefore, another Advocate has been engaged. This appeal had come up before me on 19‑5‑1997 and the learned counsel for the appellant has sought time to prepare and argue the question of limitation pointed out by the office. The matter was adjourned for a fixed date i.e., 26‑5‑1997. On 26‑5‑1997, the appeal was taken‑up in the morning but wash kept aside due to absence of the appellant and her counsel. Again, it was called at 12‑30 p.m. but nobody had turned‑up to prosecute the matter resulting in its dismissal. The learned counsel, in case he was busy before other Benches, could have left some intimation to that effect. Moreover, despite knowledge about the date of hearing, the application for restoration was filed after 49 days. Although an application for restoration of rent appeal can be filed within three years, the delay in filing the application must be accounted for. This is particularly so when the date of hearing is known to the party or his/her counsel. The justification offered on behalf of the appellant for absence on 26‑5‑1997 can; hardly be termed sufficient. In the circumstances, the application for restoration has no merit and is dismissed. A.A./R‑42/K Application dismissed