2010 PLP 170 (YLR)
IRFANUDDIN — Plaintiff Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. — Defendant
| Citation | 2010 PLP 170 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Nadeem Azhar Siddiqi, J |
| Parties | IRFANUDDIN — Plaintiff Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. — Defendant |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 170 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 170 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Nadeem Azhar Siddiqi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 170 (YLR) (IRFANUDDIN — Plaintiff Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. — Defendant). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.42 & 54
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, Rr.8 & 9
Suit for declaration and permanent injunction
Dismissal of suit for non-prosecution--Application for restoration of suit and condonation of delay
Suit filed by the plaintiff having been dismissed for non-prosecution, the plaintiff filed application for its restoration after about 6 months of its dismissal
Defendant had endorsed his no objection for condonation of delay
Reasons assigned by the counsel for the plaintiff for condonation of delay, appeared to be genuine and in view of no objection endorsed by the counsel for defendant, application was allowed and delay in filing of the restoration application was condoned
Counsel for defendant had also no objection for restoration of suit as prayed for by the plaintiff in his application
Reasons assigned in the affidavits filed in support of restoration application by the plaintiff, appeared to be genuine and reasonable and sufficient cause was shown for restoration of the suit
Application was allowed and suit was restored to its original position. Muhammad Akram Khan v. Mst. Shahzada Begum 1972 SCMR 410; Mst. Begum v. Mst. Begum Kaniz Fatima Hayat 1989 SCMR 883 and Muhammad Dawood v. The State 1986 SCMR 536 ref. Sabir Hussain for Plaintiff. Syed Amanullah Khan Agha for Defendant.
Judgment & Decree
NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.--Learned counsel for the defendant waives notice of the listed application and has endorsed his no objection for condonation of delay on the ground that learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed his personal affidavit. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29-10-2007 when the same was fixed for hearing of application as well as for issues. The restoration application was filed on 26-4-2008 on the ground that the learned counsel for plaintiff was on general adjournment as well as his name was not appeared in the cause list. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon reported cases of (1) Muhammad Akram Khan v. Mst. Shahzada Begum (1972 SCMR 410), (2) Mst. Begum v. Mst. Begum Kaniz Fatima Hayat (1989 SCMR 883) and (3) Muhammad Dawood v. The State (1986 SCMR 536). The reasons assigned by the learned counsel for plaintiff for condoning the delay appear to be genuine and in view of no objection endorsed by the learned counsel for defendant this application is allowed and they delay in filing of the restoration application is condoned.
2. By this application the plaintiff has prayed for restoration of the suit dismissed for non-prosecution on 29-10-2007. Learned counsel for the defendant has no objection for restoration of the suit. The reasons assigned in the affidavits in support of the restoration application appear to be genuine and reasonable and sufficient cause for restoration of the suit, hence this application is allowed and the suit is restored to its original position. H.B.T./I-24/K Suit restored.