2018 PLP 121 (YLRN)
SHAHID HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus SHAH ZAHIR KHAN and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 PLP 121 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Malik Haq Nawaz, J |
| Parties | SHAHID HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus SHAH ZAHIR KHAN and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 121 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 121 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Malik Haq Nawaz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 121 (YLRN) (SHAHID HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus SHAH ZAHIR KHAN and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Basharat Ali for Petitioner.
- None for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XLI, R. 19
Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution
Scope
Appellant did not appear and appeal was dismissed in default
Petition for re-admission of appeal was accepted subject to payment of cost
Appellant avoided to appear before the Appellate Court
Petitioner was present outside the Court but did not appear before the Court intentionally, restoration of appeal with cost was justified in circumstances
Revision having been filed maliciously just to linger on the proceedings before the Appellate Court, same was dismissed in limine. [Paras. 4 & 5 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The petitioner/appellant has filed the instant revision petition bearing No. 81/201 against the order/judgment passed by learned District Judge Gilgit dated 05-06-2017, on the ground that the learned District Judge imposed cost of Rs. 8000/- on the petitioner/appellant which was within time and sufficient grounds were available for non-appearance if the petitioner/appellant on 20-02-2017. The order be set aside up to the extent of imposition of cost of Rs. 8000/-.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a civil 1st appeal filed by the petitioner/appellant was pending adjudication before District Judge Gilgit which was dismissed on 20-12-2017 for non-prosecution. The petitioner/appellant filed a petition under Order XLI, Rule 19, C.P.C. for re-admission of the appeal by setting aside the impugned order/judgment dated 20-02-2017, which was fixed for hearing on 05-06-2017. On 05-06-2017 as evident from the impugned order/ judgment the learned District Judge allowed restoration of appeal subject to payment of cost of Rs.8000/-.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant has assailed the order on mainly fold ground and contended that the above order has been passed in a slip shod manner without proper application of judicial mind and in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner/appellant, which requires to be set aside. Per learned counsel, there were many other solid and valid grounds for non-appearance when the order dated 20-02-2017 was passed, heavy cost is not only arbitrary but mis-application of law laid down by the judicial hierarchy in such like cases.
4. I have minutely examined the order and the arguments raised at bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner/ appellant and examined the record of the case with due care and caution. As evident from the order/judgment dated 05-06-2017 counsel for both the parties were present. The learned counsel for the respondent before the learned District Judge argued that the petitioner/appellant is avoiding appearance in the instant appeal. As obversed by District Judge on 20-02-2017 the petitioner/appellant was present outside the Court and did not bother to appear before the Court intentionally. The learned District Judge while considering above grounds though restored the appeal but imposed a cost of Rs.8000/-, which was justified in above circumstances.
5. I am of the view that the instant revision petition has been filed maliciously just to linger on the proceeding pending adjudication before the learned District Judge. The same is dismissed in limini. ZC/211/GB Revision dismissed.