1990 PLP 636 (SCMR)
Mst. GHULAM FATIMA and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. SABLAN and 7 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 636 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zillah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. GHULAM FATIMA and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. SABLAN and 7 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 636 (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 1990 PLP 636 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zillah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 636 (SCMR) (Mst. GHULAM FATIMA and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. SABLAN and 7 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.4.
- Date of hearing: 10th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 26‑10‑1985 of the Lahore high Court, Multan Bench, in F.A.O. No.40 of 1982)‑. ‑‑‑O.X, R.4(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Plaintiffs were non- suited for their failure to appear in Court .personally and to answer questions as per direction of Court‑‑‑Plaintiffs' appeal was accepted but defendants in turn, succeeded in High Court‑‑‑Grounds urged in petition for leave together with the points; whether, the question of exercise of discretion allowed by the second part of sub‑rule (2) of R.4 of OX, C.P.C. did not require the Court to examine, specifically; whether, the discretion should be exercised against the plaintiffs females; in the circumstances of the case, required examination‑‑‑Leave to appeal granted. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for the Remaining Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiff side in a suit for declaration; against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondents F.A.O. The petitioners were required under Order X, Rule 4 (2) C.P.C. to appear personally in Court and to answer questions. On their failure to do so they were non‑suited. Their appeal was accepted but the respondents side having in their turn succeeded in the High Court, the petitioners have now sought leave to appeal. The learned Judge in the High Court after giving reasons for setting aside the appellate order in the operative part of the impugned judgment observed as follows:‑ "The absence of the next friend of Lal Khatoon and Ghulam Fatima on two dates when they were ordered to appear in person entailed the penalty embodied in Order X, Rule 4(2) of the C.P.C. 1, therefore, accept this first appeal against order The impugned judgment has been challenged on various grounds stated in the petition. The grounds urged in the petition together with the points: whether, the question of exercise of discretion allowed by the second part of sub -rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order X, C.P.C. did not require the Court to examine it specifically; whether, the discretion should be exercised against the plaintiffs females; in the circumstances of this case, would require examination. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted. Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all essential documents. AA‑/ G‑‑224/S Leave granted