2017 PLP 466 (SCMR)
HABIB BANK LIMITED — Petitioner Versus HAIDER LADHU JAFFER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 466 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Dost Muhammad Khan, Qazi Faez Isa and Faisal Arab, JJ |
| Parties | HABIB BANK LIMITED — Petitioner Versus HAIDER LADHU JAFFER and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 466 (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 2017 PLP 466 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Dost Muhammad Khan, Qazi Faez Isa and Faisal Arab, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 466 (SCMR) (HABIB BANK LIMITED — Petitioner Versus HAIDER LADHU JAFFER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rasheed A. Rizvi, Senior, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Kassim Mirjat, Advocate on Record for Petitioner.
- Mrs. Saba Latif, Advocate Supreme Court along with Taffazul H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Tasneem Amin, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Courts for both the parties and have gone through the record. The law points needs extensive debate and consideration, which are reproduced below;--
- 3. Learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the appellants stated that after restoration, the learned trial Judge has started proceeding in the case, thus, if the same is taken to a logical conclusion, the appeal in hand would become infructuous. Therefore, the proceedings before the learned trial Court may be stayed. The other side opposed the passing of such order by arguing that let the trial Court proceed with the case, but not to pronounce the final judgment in our view. It would be a futile exercise in case the appeal is allowed, thus, the proceedings before the learned trial Court are suspended.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 6-10-2015 of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi passed in H.C.A. No.10 of 2014)
S. 151 & O.VI, R.19
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider questions that whether a simple petition under S.151 of the C.P.C. against the dismissal of the suit which resulted in a decree after the dismissal of the suit in default for appearance was maintainable and competent; that as to how the respondents/plaintiffs conducted themselves throughout the proceedings in pursuing their remedy, whether they were vigilant or otherwise; that whether the petition filed for restoration in question was within the period of limitation because no date of getting knowledge of the dismissal of their petition for default in appearance had been mentioned in application for restoration; that whether the process of the Court keeping in view the ordinary course of events and presumption attached therewith could be held to have been duly served on the respondents/plaintiffs about the date fixed for hearing in the main petition and that whether non-filing of form of address in terms of O.VI, R.19 of the C.P.C. had adverse consequences on the respondents/plaintiffs
Supreme Court, however, observed that it would be a futile exercise in case the appeal was allowed, thus the proceedings before that Trial Court were suspended.
Judgment & Decree
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.
We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Courts for both the parties and have gone through the record. The law points needs extensive debate and consideration, which are reproduced below;-- (i) Whether a simple petition under section 151 of the C.P.C. against the dismissed of the suit which resulted in a decree after the dismissal of the suit in default for appearance was maintainable and competent? (ii) How the respondents/plaintiffs conducted themselves throughout the proceedings in pursuing their remedy as whether they were vigilant or otherwise? (iii) Whether the petition filed for restoration in question was within the period of limitation because no date of getting knowledge of the dismissal of their petition for default in appearance has been mentioned in Civil Miscellaneous Application for restoration? (iv) Whether the process of the Court keeping in view the ordinary course of events and presumption attached therewith could be held to have been duly served on the respondents/plaintiffs about the date fixed for hearing in the main petition, and (v) Whether non-filing of form of address in terms of Order VI, Rule 19 of the C.P.C. has adverse consequences on the respondents/plaintiffs?
2. The above law points require serious consideration and debate, therefore, leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to consider the same. The appeal be fixed in the last week of April 2017, because it is an oldest case on the original side.
3. Learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the appellants stated that after restoration, the learned trial Judge has started proceeding in the case, thus, if the same is taken to a logical conclusion, the appeal in hand would become infructuous. Therefore, the proceedings before the learned trial Court may be stayed. The other side opposed the passing of such order by arguing that let the trial Court proceed with the case, but not to pronounce the final judgment in our view. It would be a futile exercise in case the appeal is allowed, thus, the proceedings before the learned trial Court are suspended. MWA/H-1/SC Leave granted.