2007S1019 (PLP)
AMMANULLAH KHAN LEGHARI — Appellant Versus ABID SHAIKH AHMED — Respondent
| Citation | 2007S1019 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas, Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | AMMANULLAH KHAN LEGHARI — Appellant Versus ABID SHAIKH AHMED — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007S1019 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007S1019 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas, Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007S1019 (PLP) (AMMANULLAH KHAN LEGHARI — Appellant Versus ABID SHAIKH AHMED — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- 3. After hearing Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent and examination of the record as well as the impugned judgment, we do not feel persuaded to agree with the view taken by the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court which on the face of the record appears to be hyper-technical and against the broad principles of law. Assuming for the sake of argument, that the provisions of C.P.C. 1908 would not be strictly attracted in appeals under the Ordinance, 1979, we are of the view that broad and equitable principles of C.P.C. can always be invoked for ensuring complete and substantial justice to the parties. In the present case since the order of dismissal was passed by the High Court, we are firmly of the opinion that it would be appropriate for the High Court to entertain a prayer for recall and re-admission. High Court should not in such cases suffer from abdication of jurisdiction and rather exercise its jurisdiction for securing complete ends of justice and suppressing the mischief rather than technically knocking out a person.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 21 [as amended by Sindh Rented Premises (Amendment) Ordinance (XIV of 2001)
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Preamble
Order of dismissal of appeal was passed by the High Court before amendment of S.21, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979
Question arose as to whether after dismissal of first rent appeal by the High Court under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 High Court, after the amendment introduced in S.21 conferring powers of appeal on the District Judge, was competent to re admit the appeal dismissed for non-prosecution at the instance of the appellant upon showing sufficient cause
Held, broad and equitable principles of Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) could always be invoked for ensuring complete and substantial justice between the parties
Order of the dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution having been passed by the High Court, it would be appropriate for the High Court to entertain a prayer for its recall and re-admission
High Court should not in such cases, suffer from abdication of jurisdiction and rather exercise its jurisdiction for securing complete ends of justice and suppressing the mischief rather than technically knocking out a person
Supreme Court directed that restoration application shall be deemed to be pending 'before the High Court and shall be disposed of on its own merits strictly in accordance with law with utmost expedition in view of the anxiety expressed by respondent who has been litigating for the enforcement of his right for the last more than sixteen years.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
This appeal with leave of the Court is directed against the Sindh High Court judgment, dated 24-5-2001.
2. Short question for consideration in this appeal is whether after the dismissal of F.R.A. under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to the Ordinance, 1979), High Court was competent to re-admit the appeal at the instance of the appellant upon showing sufficient cause. The view taken in the impugned judgment appears to be that after the amendment introduced in the Ordinance, 1979 conferring the powers of appeal on the District Court, High Court would have no jurisdiction to deal with any application for restoration or re-admission of an appeal dismissed by it for non-prosecution.
3. After hearing Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent and examination of the record as well as the impugned judgment, we do not feel persuaded to agree with the view taken by the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court which on the face of the record appears to be hyper-technical and against the broad principles of law. Assuming for the sake of argument, that the provisions of C.P.C. 1908 would not be strictly attracted in appeals under the Ordinance, 1979, we are of the view that broad and equitable principles of C.P.C. can always be invoked for ensuring complete and substantial justice to the parties. In the present case since the order of dismissal was passed by the High Court, we are firmly of the opinion that it would be appropriate for the High Court to entertain a prayer for recall and re-admission. High Court should not in such cases suffer from abdication of jurisdiction and rather exercise its jurisdiction for securing complete ends of justice and suppressing the mischief rather than technically knocking out a person.
4. In this view of the matter, we would allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. Restoration application shall be deemed to be pending before the High Court and shall be disposed of on its own merits strictly in accordance with the law with utmost expedition in view of the anxiety expressed by respondent who has been litigating for the enforcement of his right for the last more than sixteen years. No order as to costs. M.B.A./A-34/SC Order accordingly.