2006 PLP 1473 (CLC)
SECRETARY AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 others — Petitioners Versus Messrs MUHAMMAD ABBAS & SONS — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1473 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SECRETARY AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 others — Petitioners Versus Messrs MUHAMMAD ABBAS & SONS — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1473 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1473 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1473 (CLC) (SECRETARY AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 others — Petitioners Versus Messrs MUHAMMAD ABBAS & SONS — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Shahid Tabassaum for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
O. VIII, R.10, O. XLIII, R.I & 5.115
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Application for condonation of delay
Appeal was filed by petitioners against order of Trial Court closing right their to file written statement as petitioners despite repeated opportunities, had failed to present their defence through filing of written statement
Trial Court did not pronounce any judgment in terms of R.10 of Order VIII, C.P.C., but passed an order of adjournment of suit after closing petitioners right to file written statement
Appeal filed by petitioners against order of Trial Court, was dismissed by Appellate Court being barred by time and it refused to exercise its discretion to condone delay in view of defaulting conduct of petitioners
Revision had been filed by petitioner against order dismissing their appeal passed by Appellate Court
No judgment having been pronounced by Trial Court under R.10 of O.VIII, C.P.C., appeal filed by petitioners was not allowable by law
Even if appeal could have been treated as a civil revision, petitioners would be barred to file a second revision before High Court
Petitioners having filed an incompetent appeal and then a revision, circumstances of the case did not justify conversion of revision into a constitutional petition under Art.199 of the Constitution, as prayed by petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.
This civil revision is directed against the dismissal of appeal through order, dated 20-2-2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby refusing condonation of delay of over two years, the learned first appellate Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal.
2. The appeal was filed by the present petitioners against order, dated 3-6-2000 of the learned trial Judge closing the right of the petitioners to file the written statement as the petitioners despite repeated opportunities had failed to present their defence through filing of written statement.
3. Notably the learned trial Judge did not pronounce any judgment in terms of rule 10 of Order VIII, C.P.C. but passed an order of adjournment of the suit after closing petitioners' right to file the. written statement. The appeal was filed against the above said order, dated 3-6-2000 under the provisions of rule 1 of Order XLIII, C.P.C. by the petitioners. As recorded above, the appeal was dismissed being barred by time and' the learned first appellate Court refused to exercise its discretion to condone the delay in favour of the petitioners in view of their defaulting conduct and absence of proof of collusion and connivance of their officer appearing in the Court and the respondent. The present civil revision has thus, been filed against order, dated 20-2-2003 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore dismissing appeal of the petitioners.
4. Confronted with the provisions of rule 1 of Order XLIII, C.P.C. regarding the maintainability of the appeal against order, dated 3-6-2000, the learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that no judgment was pronounced by the learned trial Judge under rule, 10 of Order VIII, C.P.C. and instead the suit was adjourned.
5. The provisions of rule 1(b) of Order XLIII, C.P.C. provide that an appeal lies only against "an order under rule 10 of Order VIII, C.P.C. pronouncing judgment against a party". In absence of a judgment against the petitioners, their appeal against order, dated 3-6-2000 was obviously incompetent. The learned Additional District Judge also proceeded with the matter as if the appeal was competent but dismissed the same being barred by time.
6. Be that as it may, the appeal as filed by the petitioners was obviously not allowed by the law wherefor even it the appeal coma nave been treated as a civil revision, the petitioners would be barred to file a second civil revision before this Court.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court for conversion. of this civil revision into a constitutional petition. In view of the fact that the petitioners filed an incompetent appeal and then a civil revision, the circumstances of the case do not justify conversion of the present civil revision into a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The present civil revision admittedly arises out of an incompetent appeal filed by the petitioners. This civil revision is thus, dismissed. H.B.T./S-19/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.