2005 PLP 1597 (SCMR)
MUKHI CHATROMAL and another — Petitioner Versus KHUBCHAND and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1597 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Mian Muhammad Ajmal, JJ |
| Parties | MUKHI CHATROMAL and another — Petitioner Versus KHUBCHAND and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1597 (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 2005 PLP 1597 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Mian Muhammad Ajmal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1597 (SCMR) (MUKHI CHATROMAL and another — Petitioner Versus KHUBCHAND and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Akbar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th July, 2004.
- 2. We have heard the petitioner No.1 in person as well as Mr. Ali Akbar, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners at quite some length. Learned counsel was asked whether the petitioners have complied with the directive of the High Court, to which he fairly conceded that amount of rent had not been deposited as directed. Since the petitioners have not cared to comply with the condition stipulated in the order for re-admission of the appeal, we find no good ground to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court, which is neither unfair nor unreasonable.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of High Court of Sindh at Karachi dated 18-11-2002 passed in High Court Appeal No.135 of 1986).
O. XLI, R.19
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Non-compliance of condition imposed by High Court at the time of restoration of appeal
Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution was restored by High Court on the condition that the appellants would deposit the rent in Court within 60 days
Appellants failed to deposit the amount as directed by High Court, therefore, appeal was dismissed
Effect
As the appellants did not care to comply with the condition stipulated in the order for re-admission of appeal, Supreme Court declined to interfere with the exercise of discretion by High Court which was neither unfair nor unreasonable
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
High Court Appeal No.135 of 1986 preferred by the petitioners against judgment of a learned Single Judge rejecting the plaint in Suit No.188 of 1982 under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh on 15-12-2000. Through C.M.As. Nos.457 and 458 of 2001, he made a prayer for restoration of his appeal, which was allowed, subject to the condition that he shall deposit the total amount of rent collected from various tenants in all 120 in number from December, 2000 onwards till the date of order with the Nazir of the High Court within a period of 60 days, failing which applications of restoration shall be deemed to have been dismissed. By the same order Nazir of the High Court was appointed as Commissioner to collect the rent disclosed in the statement dated 1-11-2002 with immediate effect.
2. We have heard the petitioner No.1 in person as well as Mr. Ali Akbar, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners at quite some length. Learned counsel was asked whether the petitioners have complied with the directive of the High Court, to which he fairly conceded that amount of rent had not been deposited as directed. Since the petitioners have not cared to comply with the condition stipulated in the order for re-admission of the appeal, we find no good ground to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court, which is neither unfair nor unreasonable.
3. Even otherwise, this petition is filed against dead persons, which is nullity in law, as according to petitioner-Mukhi Chatromal except respondent No.7 all other respondents are dead long back.
4. While dismissing this petition, we would direct the Nazir and the Registrar of the High Court to ensure compliance of the High Court order, which appears to have been completely flouted. Order accordingly. Compliance be reported within 60 days positively. M.H./M-236/S Leave refused.