P L D 2025 Supreme Court 718 (PLP)
KHURSHED ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AYUB and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2025 Supreme Court 718 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Yahya Afridi, C.J., Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, JJ |
| Parties | KHURSHED ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AYUB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2025 Supreme Court 718 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2025 Supreme Court 718 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Yahya Afridi, C.J., Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2025 Supreme Court 718 (PLP) (KHURSHED ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AYUB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- 2. On 29.03.2023 though defendants Nos. 1 to 7 were present before Trial Court but no one for petitioner/ plaintiff, which resulted in the dismissal of suit for non-prosecution.
Headnotes / Summary
O.IX, Rr.8 & 9
Dismissal of a suit for non-prosecution when the case was fixed for recording of evidence
Discretion of court to dismiss suit once ripe for hearing
Settlement of issues, effect of
The moment issues are framed in a suit, it becomes ripe for hearing
Distinction between pre-issues and post-issues proceedings stated
The petitioner filed civil suit wherein issues were framed and when the case was fixed for recording evidence, it was adjourned due to the absence of the defendants
However, on next date, though respondents/ defendants Nos. 1 to 7 were present, the petitioner failed to appear, resulting in dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution
Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for restoration, citing his father's illness as the reason for absence
The application was dismissed for failure to justify the delay or providing sufficient cause
An appeal against this decision was also dismissed by the district court, subsequently, the petitioner then approached the Supreme Court
Held: In the suit the issues were framed and the moment issues were framed, the suit became ripe for hearing
Notwithstanding the listed applications on the fateful day, the suit was also listed for hearing as the issues had been framed and case was adjourned for evidence of petitioner/plaintiff
The argument that suit was not ripe for hearing or that it should not have been dismissed for non- prosecution and/or at the most the application fixed could have been dismissed, was not convincing
It was well within the discretion of court to dismiss the suit if it was ripe for hearing i.e. after settlement of issues
There was, however, a distinction between date of hearing of suit and date of appearance of parties before settlement of issuesand the later could not be at par with date of hearing which was not the case in the present matter
Leave to appeal was declined and the petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J.
Petitioner filed suit being No.97/1 on 30.07.2019 wherein issues were framed on 10.01.2020 and 11.09.2021. Impugned order disclosed that on 27.02.2023 when the matter was fixed for evidence it was adjourned to 29.03.2023 on account of absence of defendants/ respondents.
2. On 29.03.2023 though defendants Nos. 1 to 7 were present before Trial Court but no one for petitioner/ plaintiff, which resulted in the dismissal of suit for non-prosecution.
3. Belatedly, a restoration application was filed on 23.05.2023 on the alleged illness of father of plaintiff, though counsel had marked his presence in the morning but did not appear later on the day of dismissal of suit. Grounds disclosed in the application were not found sufficient and consequently dismissed both the applications for condonation as well as restoration on 19.12.2023. Appeal preferred but met the same fate before District Judge, Swat vide order dated 17.01.2024.
4. The time barred application did not provide any satisfactory reasons. Before us learned counsel took a fresh ground that suit in presence of other applications, which were pending should not have been dismissed.
5. We are afraid the argument of the learned counsel is not convincing. In the suit the issues were framed and the moment issues are framed in a suit, it (suit) become ripe for hearing. Notwithstanding the listed applications on the fateful day, the suit has also listed for hearing as the issues have been framed and case was adjourned for evidence of petitioner/ plaintiff. This argument therefore is not convincing that suit was not ripe for hearing or that it should not have been dismissed for non-prosecution and/or at the most the application fixed could have been dismissed. It is well within the discretion of court to dismiss the suit if it is ripe for hearing i.e. after settlement of issues. There is however a distinction between date of hearing of suit and date of appearance of parties before settlement of issues
1. Later cannot be at par with date of hearing which is not the case here.
6. In view of the foregoing, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, leave to appeal is declined and consequently this petition is dismissed. UN/K-4/SC Petition dismissed.