2003 PLP 1940 (SCMR)
HAYAT KHAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL RAZZAQ and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1940 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | HAYAT KHAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL RAZZAQ and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1940 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1940 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1940 (SCMR) (HAYAT KHAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL RAZZAQ and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Shamim Abbas Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Shahzad Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st January, 2003.
- 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Mr. Khizar Abbas Khan, Advocate, who originally filed the appeal had been superseded by Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate. The said learned counsel was busy before this Court and could not appear in the High Court at the time when the appeal was called for hearing. Therefore, the Lahore High Court, Lahore was not justified to dismiss the appeal for non‑prosecution by order dated 6‑11‑1995. It was further contented that the position was further clarified by the, petitioners through Civil Miscellaneous No.776 of 1995 for the readmission of the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order was not sustainable at law. The learned counsel relied ‑on the cases of Mst. Zubaida Mumtaz Begum and others v. Mst. Ikram Jan and another 1990 SCMR 1025 and Slamat Bibi and others v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan PLD 1996 SC 467 in support of his contention that where an Advocate was busy before the apex Court, the High Court was not expected to dismiss a case for non‑prosecution.
- 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. We find that the petitioners had filed their appeal in the Lahore High Court, through Mr. Khizar Abbas Khan, Advocate, who was under obligation to appear and argue the appeal. The said learned counsel was present before the Court when the appeal came up for hearing. No request for adjournment was made on the ground that Ch. Muhammad A Ashraf, Advocate was busy before, this Court in some other case. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had withdrawn their power of attorney already executed in favour of Mr. Khizar Abbas Khan, Advocate or that Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate had been appointed in his place. The precedent case relied on by the learned counsel had no similarity to the facts of the present case. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity and the discretion exercised by the High Court does not call for any interference. This is not a fit case for grant of leave.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20‑12‑2000 passed. by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Regular First Appeal No.80 of 1988). ‑‑‑‑O.XLI, R.19‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑ Dismissal of appeal for non‑prosecution on appellant's original counsel's showing his inability to argue appeal‑‑‑High Court dismissed application for readmission of appeal‑‑‑Contention of appellant was that at the time of call of appeal, his other counsel, who superseded original counsel, was busy before Supreme Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Appeal had come up for hearing in presence of original counsel, but he had not made request for adjournment that other counsel was busy before Supreme Court‑‑ Appellant had not withdrawn power of attorney of original counsel on account of having appointed in his place other counsel‑‑‑Original counsel, who filed appeal before High Court, was under obligation to appear and argue appeal‑‑‑Impugned judgment did not suffer from any illegal infirmity‑‑‑Discretion exercised by High Court did not call for interference‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissed petition. Mst. Zubaida Mumtaz Begum anti others v. Mst. Ikram Jan and another 1990 SCMR 1025 and Slamat Bibi and others v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan PLD 1996 SC 467 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Mst. Zubaida Mumtaz Begum anti others v. Mst. Ikram Jan and another 1990 SCMR 1025 and Slamat Bibi and others v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan PLD 1996 SC 467 ref. Syed Shamim Abbas Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Shahzad Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st January, 2003. FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against judgment dated 20‑12‑2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Regular First Appeal No. 80 of 1988.
2. The petitioners instituted a civil suit against the respondents for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell the land measuring 1175 Kanals and 13 Marlas situated at Mauza Salam Pur Faraz, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang. The civil suit of the petitioners was dismissed on merits by Civil Judge 1st Class, Shorkot by judgment and decree dated 31‑1‑1988. The petitioners filed Regular First Appeal No.80 of 1988, which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore by order dated 6‑11‑1995 for non‑prosecution on the ground that learned counsel for the petitioners had shown his inability to argue the appeal. The petitioners filed Civil Miscellaneous No.776 of 1995 under Order 41, rule 19, C.P.C. for readmission of the appeal, which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore by impugned order dated 20‑12‑2000. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Mr. Khizar Abbas Khan, Advocate, who originally filed the appeal had been superseded by Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate. The said learned counsel was busy before this Court and could not appear in the High Court at the time when the appeal was called for hearing. Therefore, the Lahore High Court, Lahore was not justified to dismiss the appeal for non‑prosecution by order dated 6‑11‑1995. It was further contented that the position was further clarified by the, petitioners through Civil Miscellaneous No.776 of 1995 for the readmission of the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order was not sustainable at law. The learned counsel relied ‑on the cases of Mst. Zubaida Mumtaz Begum and others v. Mst. Ikram Jan and another 1990 SCMR 1025 and Slamat Bibi and others v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan PLD 1996 SC 467 in support of his contention that where an Advocate was busy before the apex Court, the High Court was not expected to dismiss a case for non‑prosecution.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. We find that the petitioners had filed their appeal in the Lahore High Court, through Mr. Khizar Abbas Khan, Advocate, who was under obligation to appear and argue the appeal. The said learned counsel was present before the Court when the appeal came up for hearing. No request for adjournment was made on the ground that Ch. Muhammad A Ashraf, Advocate was busy before, this Court in some other case. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had withdrawn their power of attorney already executed in favour of Mr. Khizar Abbas Khan, Advocate or that Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate had been appointed in his place. The precedent case relied on by the learned counsel had no similarity to the facts of the present case. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity and the discretion exercised by the High Court does not call for any interference. This is not a fit case for grant of leave.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. S.A.K./H‑83‑S Petition dismissed.