1993 PLP 378 (CLC)
ARSHAD MAHMOOD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus PAK KASHMIR MACHES FACTORY, MIRPUR
| Citation | 1993 PLP 378 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Azad J & K |
| Bench Members | Abdul Majeed Mallick CJ |
| Parties | ARSHAD MAHMOOD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus PAK KASHMIR MACHES FACTORY, MIRPUR |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 378 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 378 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Azad J & K bench comprising: Abdul Majeed Mallick CJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 378 (CLC) (ARSHAD MAHMOOD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus PAK KASHMIR MACHES FACTORY, MIRPUR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M.Y. Surakhvi for Petitioners.
- Ch. Ali Muhammad for Respondent No.26.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.IX, Rr.3, 4, 8, 9 & 13; O.XLIII, R.1(c) & S.115‑‑‑Neither plaintiff nor defendant appearing when suit called on for hearing ‑‑‑Dismissal of suit for non‑prosecution‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑Neither party having appeared when suit was called on for hearing‑‑‑Provision of O.IX, R.3, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was attracted and not provision of O.IX, R.8, which would have been applicable when defendant had appeared and plaintiff had failed to appear‑‑‑Where suit had been dismissed for non‑appearance of both parties, plaintiff could avail remedy provided under O.IX, R.4, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for restoration of suit; in case of his failure be could seek intervention High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Where, however, order of dismissal of suit had been passed under provision of O.IX, R.8, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, order passed under O.IX, R.9, would be appealable under OXLIII, R.l(c), C.P.C.‑‑‑Where order resulting in rejection of application for restoration or order of dismissal of suit was void ab initio, without jurisdiction. capricious, arbitrary'or derogatory to the fundamental rules of administration of justice, such. order was subject to revisional jurisdiction of High Court, provided that no appeal was preferred against the same. PLD 1950 BJ 19; PLD 1987 AKJ 44;1986 CLC 3120 and PLD 1954 BJ 53 ref. Muhammad Yasin v. Jan Muhammad and others 1986 CLC 1320; Mothichand's cage AIR 1952 Bhopal 33; K. Suryanarayana Goru's case AIR 1923 Mad. 197; Durga Kanta Sarma's case AIR 1918 Cal. 330 and Chotey Miyan Abdul Shakur's case AIR 1931 All. 4.53 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.IX, R.2, O.XVII, R.2 & S.115‑‑‑Dismissal of suit for want of prosecution‑‑‑Orders passed under provision of O.IX, R.4, C.P.C. and under provision of O.XVII, R.2, C.P.C. (not within the scope of O.IX, Civil Procedure Code, 1908) on account of absence of plaintiff resulting in dismissal of suit for want of prosecution, were open to revision. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑OXVII, Rr.2 & 3‑‑‑Applicability. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.IX, R.4 & S.115‑‑‑Application for restoration of suit ‑‑‑Dismissal‑‑ Opportunity to produce evidence not provided to plaintiff'‑‑‑Order of dismissal of application for restoration of suit was set aside‑‑‑Case was remanded to Trial Court with direction .that plaintiffs be allowed to lead their entire evidence in support of their application for restoration of suit.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑O.IX, Rr.3, 4, 8, 9 & 13; O.XLIII, R.1(c) & S.115‑‑‑Neither plaintiff nor defendant appearing when suit called on for hearing ‑‑‑Dismissal of suit for non‑prosecution‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑Neither party having appeared when suit was called on for hearing‑‑‑Provision of O.IX, R.3, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was attracted and not provision of O.IX, R.8, which would have been applicable when defendant had appeared and plaintiff had failed to appear‑‑‑Where suit had been dismissed for non‑appearance of both parties, plaintiff could avail remedy provided under O.IX, R.4, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for restoration of suit; in case of his failure be could seek intervention High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Where, however, order of dismissal of suit had been passed under provision of O.IX, R.8, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, order passed under O.IX, R.9, would be appealable under OXLIII, R.l(c), C.P.C.‑‑‑Where order resulting in rejection of application for restoration or order of dismissal of suit was void ab initio, without jurisdiction. capricious, arbitrary'or derogatory to the fundamental rules of administration of justice, such. order was subject to revisional jurisdiction of High Court, provided that no appeal was preferred against the same. PLD 1950 BJ 19; PLD 1987 AKJ 44;1986 CLC 3120 and PLD 1954 BJ 53 ref. Muhammad Yasin v. Jan Muhammad and others 1986 CLC 1320; Mothichand's cage AIR 1952 Bhopal 33; K. Suryanarayana Goru's case AIR 1923 Mad. 197; Durga Kanta Sarma's case AIR 1918 Cal. 330 and Chotey Miyan Abdul Shakur's case AIR 1931 All. 4.53 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.IX, R.2, O.XVII, R.2 & S.115‑‑‑Dismissal of suit for want of prosecution‑‑‑Orders passed under provision of O.IX, R.4, C.P.C. and under provision of O.XVII, R.2, C.P.C. (not within the scope of O.IX, Civil Procedure Code, 1908) on account of absence of plaintiff resulting in dismissal of suit for want of prosecution, were open to revision. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑OXVII, Rr.2 & 3‑‑‑Applicability. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.IX, R.4 & S.115‑‑‑Application for restoration of suit ‑‑‑Dismissal‑‑ Opportunity to produce evidence not provided to plaintiff'‑‑‑Order of dismissal of application for restoration of suit was set aside‑‑‑Case was remanded to Trial Court with direction .that plaintiffs be allowed to lead their entire evidence in support of their application for restoration of suit. M.Y. Surakhvi for Petitioners. Ch. Ali Muhammad for Respondent No.26.