YLR 2006

2006 PLP 910 (YLR)

IQBAL HAIDER and 3 others — Petitioners Versus P.C.B.L through Chairman and 14 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Petition No.139-C of 2005, decided on 26th October, 2005.
Honorable Judges
Nasim Sikandar, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2006 PLP 910 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Nasim Sikandar, J
Parties IQBAL HAIDER and 3 others — Petitioners Versus P.C.B.L through Chairman and 14 others — Respondents
Primary Law Punjab Undesirable Co-operative Societies (Dissolution) Act (I of 1993)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 910 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Undesirable Co-operative Societies (Dissolution) Act (I of 1993) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 910 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 910 (YLR) (IQBAL HAIDER and 3 others — Petitioners Versus P.C.B.L through Chairman and 14 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Punjab Undesirable Co-operative Societies (Dissolution) Act (I of 1993)

Representation

  • Pir Syed Shahid Ali Shah for Petitioners.
  • "I have considered the arguments advanced before me and have also gone through the record. Mr. Hasham A. Khan, Advocate representing Iqbal Haider and others left the Court room when the witness was in witness-box. After recording the evidence the case was adjourned to 22-12-2004 and then to 4-1-2005. The plea of the applicants that they were given the date of 8-1-2005 is incorrect because they intentionally left the Court without any justification and in their absence the case was adjourned to 22-12-2004. From the facts and conduct it appears that the applicants are making efforts to prolong and delay the finalization of the proceedings pending against them. Their absence from the Court is intentional alleged by them. The facts of cited authorities are quite different from the case in hand, because in those cases there was no intentional absence/ disappearance from the Court. Hence these are not applicable in the present case.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 11

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.7

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199

Constitutional petition

Dismissal of application for setting aside ex parte proceeding against the petitioner on the ground of his intentional disappearance from Court when witness was in witness-box

Validity

Impugned order was set aside by the High Court as it was in the interest of justice to afford an adequate opportunity to the petitioner

High Court directed the Judicial Officer to start proceedings from the date on which impugned action was taken against the petitioner and refused the grant of unnecessary adjournments. Ch. Safdar Mehmood for P.C.B.L.

Judgment & Decree

NASIM SIKANDAR, J.

This application under section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 seeks to challenge an order dated 19-7-2005 recorded by respondent No.2, the Judicial Officer, P.C.B.L., Lahore. The operative part of the impugned order reads as under: "I have considered the arguments advanced before me and have also gone through the record. Mr. Hasham A. Khan, Advocate representing Iqbal Haider and others left the Court room when the witness was in witness-box. After recording the evidence the case was adjourned to 22-12-2004 and then to 4-1-2005. The plea of the applicants that they were given the date of 8-1-2005 is incorrect because they intentionally left the Court without any justification and in their absence the case was adjourned to 22-12-2004. From the facts and conduct it appears that the applicants are making efforts to prolong and delay the finalization of the proceedings pending against them. Their absence from the Court is intentional alleged by them. The facts of cited authorities are quite different from the case in hand, because in those cases there was no intentional absence/ disappearance from the Court. Hence these are not applicable in the present case. For the foregoing reasons 1 see no reason to recall the earlier order dated 4-1-2005. However, as per law they can join and contest the remaining proceedings of the present case."

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties although on factual side I will not agree with the submissions made at the bar for the petitioner yet in order to fulfil the requirements of justice and to afford an adequate opportunity to the petitioner. I will set aside the impugned order of the learned Judicial Officer and A direct the proceedings to be taken from the stage and the date on which the impugned action was rendered by the learned Judicial Officer.

3. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Judicial Officer is set aside in toto. The Judicial Officer will proceed from the stage of proceedings on which the first impugned action was taken against the petitioner. Also the witness sought to be cross-examined will be recalled and an opportunity will be allowed to the petitioner to cross-examine him. In order to forestall any attempt to prolong the proceedings on the part of the respondent, the Judicial Officer may refuse to grant unnecessary adjournments and may proceed with the matter in case of failure on the part of the petitioner to cooperate.

4. The parties will appear before the Judicial Officer on 15-11-2005. F.M./I-124/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.