P L D 2000 Peshawar 49 (PLP)
SHAH NAWAZ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AHMAD KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2000 Peshawar 49 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal, C J |
| Parties | SHAH NAWAZ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AHMAD KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2000 Peshawar 49 (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 P L D 2000 Peshawar 49 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal, C J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2000 Peshawar 49 (PLP) (SHAH NAWAZ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AHMAD KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Younis Shah for Petitioner.
- Miss Nusrat Yasmin for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 35‑A & O. XLVII, R.1‑‑‑North‑West Frontier Province (Enforcement of Certain Provisions of Law) Act (II of 1989), S.2‑‑‑Compensatory costs‑‑ Imposition of‑‑‑Review‑‑‑Imposition of compensatory costs was objected to contending firstly, that S.35-A, C.P.C. had not been extended to Province of North‑West Frontier Province and; secondly, that objection with regard to vexatisness and frivolity of suit was nor taken by defendant at initial stage in his written statement and that no finding of that effect was recorded by Trial Court arid Appellate Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑Both contentions had no force because S.35‑A, C.P.C. was enforced on 28‑5‑1989 vide North‑West Frontier Province (Enforcement of Certain Provisions of Law), Act, 1989 and objection with regard to vexatiousness and frivolity of suit was taken at initial stage in written statement alleging that plaintiff was a chronic litigant and that suit had been filed to harass defendant and issue to that effect was also framed‑‑‑Trial . Court and Appellate Court had discussed that point at length and Trial Court had imposed costs after recording reasons which on appeal was reduced‑‑‑Petition for review was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
In this Review Petition, the petitioner has sought the review of the judgment in so far as the upholding of compensatory costs of Rs.5,000 under section 35‑A, C.P.C, is concerned.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that section 35‑A, C.P.C. has not been extended to this Province, therefore, the imposition of costs under the said section is against law and without jurisdiction. His second contention is that since the objection with regard to the vexatious and frivolity of the suit was not taken at the initial stage in written statement and no finding to that effect was recorded by the trial and Appellate Courts, therefore, compensatory costs under section 35‑A, C.P.C. could not be granted.
3. Both the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have no force, for, section 35‑A, C.P.C. was enforced in this Province on 28th May, 1989 vide Act II of 1989 and is applicable ever since, therefore, compensatory cost could be granted. As regard second contention, the objection was taken at initial stage i.e. in the written statement that plaintiff is a chronic litigant and suit has been filed *to harass the defendant who are entitled to special costs, and issues to that effect were also framed. The learned trial Court and the Appellate Court discussed the same in length and the trial Court after recording reasons imposed the costs of Rs.15,000 which on appeal was reduced to Rs.5,000 by the Appellate Court. In view of the above, this Review Petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed in limine alongwith C. M. No. 15 of 1999. H.B.T./46/P Review petition dismissed.