1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Syed MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL POLICE and another
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Azad J&K |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Sajawal Khan, Chairman and Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani, Member |
| Parties | Syed MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL POLICE and another |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (d) Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (d) Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Azad J&K bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Sajawal Khan, Chairman and Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Syed MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL POLICE and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Mustafa Moughal for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
O. IX, Rr. 8 & 6 & OX.VII, R. 2
Dismissal of case for non-prosecution-- Where on date, fixed for filing written objections by respondent, petitioner or his counsel failed to appear, while respondent or his counsel appeared, case would be dismissed in default under Order IX, R.8, C.P.C. and not under. Order IX, R. 6, C.P.C. or under Order XLII, R. 2, C.P.C.
O. IX, Rr. 6 & 8 & O.XVII, R. 2
Dismissal of case for non-prosecution-- Petitioner or his counsel failed to appear on date fixed for filing written statement while respondent's counsel appeared- --Contention of petitioner that case could not be dismissed Under Order IX, R.6, C.P.C. read with Order XVII, R. 2, C.P.C. was repelled as case was dismissed under Order IX, R.8, C.P.C. since petitioner failed to appear on date fixed for hearing.
O.XVII, R. 2 & O. IX, Rr. 6 & 8
Dismissal of case for non-prosecution-- Case was dismissed on date fixed for filing written objection by respondent as petitioner or his counsel failed to appear on that date
Case could not be said to have been dismissed under Order XVII, R.2, C.P.C. or Order IX, R.6, C.P.C. but was dismissed under Order IX, R. 8, C.P.C. PLC 1983 SC AJ&K 223 ref
On date appeal was dismissed for failure of appellant to appear, appeal was not fixed for hearing, but was fixed for filing written objection by respondents
Application for restoration of appeal admittedly was Filed by appellant within prescribed period
Opposing party except on point of limitation had got no objection to restoration of appeal
Objection of opposing party with regard to question of limitation, carrying no weight, appeal could not have been dismissed in circumstances especially when appellant had mentioned good reasons for his non-appearance on fixed date. Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan for Non-Petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
O. IX, Rr. 6 & 8 & O.XVII, R. 2
Dismissal of case for non-prosecution-- Petitioner or his counsel failed to appear on date fixed for filing written statement while respondent's counsel appeared- --Contention of petitioner that case could not be dismissed Under Order IX, R.6, C.P.C. read with Order XVII, R. 2, C.P.C. was repelled as case was dismissed under Order IX, R.8, C.P.C. since petitioner failed to appear on date fixed for hearing. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
O.XVII, R. 2 & O. IX, Rr. 6 & 8
Dismissal of case for non-prosecution-- Case was dismissed on date fixed for filing written objection by respondent as petitioner or his counsel failed to appear on that date
Case could not be said to have been dismissed under Order XVII, R.2, C.P.C. or Order IX, R.6, C.P.C. but was dismissed under Order IX, R. 8, C.P.C. PLC 1983 SC AJ&K 223 ref (d) Civil service
On date appeal was dismissed for failure of appellant to appear, appeal was not fixed for hearing, but was fixed for filing written objection by respondents
Application for restoration of appeal admittedly was Filed by appellant within prescribed period
Opposing party except on point of limitation had got no objection to restoration of appeal
Objection of opposing party with regard to question of limitation, carrying no weight, appeal could not have been dismissed in circumstances especially when appellant had mentioned good reasons for his non-appearance on fixed date. Ghulam Mustafa Moughal for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan for Non-Petitioners.