1978 PLP 423 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD UMER Versus MESSRS GUL AHMED TAXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1978 PLP 423 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD UMER Versus MESSRS GUL AHMED TAXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 423 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 423 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 423 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD UMER Versus MESSRS GUL AHMED TAXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul HadI Farid for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
S. 37 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, r. 19--Appeal‑Dismissal for default of appellant‑Re‑admission/restoration‑Sufficient cause‑Curfew hours relaxed between 5‑30 to 10‑30 a. m. and 2‑30 to 6‑30 p. m,‑Plea that Representative of appellant if appeared could not go back during relaxation hours‑Representative to respondent also residing in same locality as that of appellant's Representative and appearing before Tribunal‑Contention, held, does not have sufficient cause to warrant restoration. Appellant in person Abdul HadI Farid for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th June 1977. This application has been made for restoration of the appeal dismissed in default on 26th April 1977. 2. The appeal was filed on 28th January 1977 and it was fixed for preliminary hearing on 8th February 1977 but there was no appearance and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed. A restoration application was made and the appeal was restored to file on 1st March 1977. Subsequently, it was admitted and was fixed for final hearing on 26th April 1977. On that day the representative for the respondent was present but neither the appellant nor his representative was present. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed for non‑appearance. Subsequently, again an application for restoration was made. This has been opposed by the other side. 3. The appellant and the representative for the respondent are present and they have been heard. Dealing with the merits the only ground pleaded for restoration is that on 26th April, 1977 the curfew was relaxed up to 10‑00 a. m. and since the appellant was a resident of Landhi, he could not go back by 10‑00 a. m. 4. I have considered the ground and I am of the view that this was not a sufficient cause for non‑appearance. The other side has produced an extract from the newspaper showing that the curfew was relaxed from 5‑30 a. m. to 10‑30 a. m and again from 2‑30 p. m. to 6‑30 p. m. Conse quently there is no substance in the contention that the curfew was relaxed up to 10‑00 a. m. and the appellant was a resident of Landhi and could not go track in time after attending this Court. The learned Representative for the respondent also made statement at the bar that he had himself come from Landhi. Thus if the representative of the respondent could come from Landhi to attend this Court, there is no reason why the appellant could not come. No sufficient cause has been made out preventing the appellant from attending the Court on the date of hearing. 5. In result the application is dismissed.