1993CLC831 (PLP)
ABDUR RASHID ANSARI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABU ZAHID QARI HAFEEZULLAH‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993CLC831 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Aalil‑ur‑Rehmmi Mali, J |
| Parties | ABDUR RASHID ANSARI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABU ZAHID QARI HAFEEZULLAH‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993CLC831 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993CLC831 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Aalil‑ur‑Rehmmi Mali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993CLC831 (PLP) (ABDUR RASHID ANSARI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABU ZAHID QARI HAFEEZULLAH‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th October, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 35‑A & 115‑‑‑Imposition of special costs‑‑‑Trial Court while dismissing Plaintiffs suit on the ground that none of the rights of plaintiff had been infringed, also imposed Rs.5,000 as special costs‑‑‑Trial Court's decision imposing special costs was maintained in appeal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑No justifiable objection would be taken to the view which prevailed with Courts below that suit was not competent for none of the rights of plaintiff had been infringed, but while awarding costs, status and financial position of litigant had also to be kept into consideration‑‑‑Plaintiff, while carrying out litigation had also incurred expenses‑‑‑Costs awarded being excessive, ends of justice would be fully met by awarding costs of Rs.3,000‑‑‑Trial Court's order was thus, modified by reducing costs from Rs.5,000 to Rs.3,
000. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner in person. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th October, 1992. This revision was admitted to consider the propriety of imposition of cost of Rs.5,000 under section 35‑A, C.P.C. as the learned Judge was of the opinion that the suit instituted by the plaintiff‑petitioner was frivolous suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.24,000 on the averments that the plaintiff is a staunch Muslim; the defendant‑respondent prepared a chart for timings of five prayers in which he incorporated wrong timings of prayers Zohar and Asr. The plaintiff accordingly served a notice on the defendant demanding correction of the timings and as the demand was not accepted, he filed the suit in question: 2 The learned trial Court vide order dated 30‑3‑1991 rejected the plaint under Order VII, rule II, C.P.C. holding that the suit is frivolous as the plaintiff has no authority to claim damages against the defendant on the ground that he believed that the chart prepared by the defendant giving timings, of prayers is wrong. The learned Judge was also of the view that none of the rights of the plaintiff has been infringed and that in any case suit in respect of religious matters cannot be instituted in civil Courts. He, therefore, imposed Rs.5,000 as special costs under section 35‑A of the C.P.C.
3. The order rejecting the plaint and awarding costs dated 30‑3‑1991 was challenged in appeal but the same was dismissed by the learned Addition District Judge vide judgment dated 6‑10‑1991, hence this revision petition.
4. No justifiable objection can be taken to the view which prevailed of 0‑1 the learned Courts below. The suit obviously is not competent as none of the rights of the plaintiff has been infringed but while awarding the cost the status and financial position of the litigant has also to be kept in consideration. It is to be noticed that the petitioner by carrying out this litigation has also incurred expense. Thus, the costs awarded appear to be excessive. The ends of justice would be fully met by awarding costs of Rs.3,
000. I would, therefore, reduce the cost from Rs.5,000 to Rs.3,000 and the imugned order of the learned trial Court stands modified accordingly. The revision petition succeeds in the above terms. A.A./A‑240/L Order accordingly.