2008 PLP 47 (SCMR)
SINDH SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED — Petitioner Versus Messrs MAQBOOL ASSOCIATES, KARACHI — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 47 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ |
| Parties | SINDH SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED — Petitioner Versus Messrs MAQBOOL ASSOCIATES, KARACHI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 47 (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 2008 PLP 47 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 47 (SCMR) (SINDH SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED — Petitioner Versus Messrs MAQBOOL ASSOCIATES, KARACHI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- 3. We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned Advocate -on-Record for the petitioner and gone through the facts and circumstances leading to the impugned order of the High Court. Perusal of the order clearly tends to show that the conduct and attitude of the petitioner-Corporation in prosecuting the remedy before the High Court was casual, indifferent and far from being satisfactory. At any event, no adequate ground for special treatment other than an ordinary litigant to the petitioner, muchless a "sufficient cause", for exercise of indulgence and discretion in favour of the petitioner is made out. Law is well-settled and we may refer to Zulfiqar Ali v. Lal Din 1973 SCMR 573, which fully supports the view taken by the High Court and reaffirmed by us.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, 14-3-2006 passed in High Court Appeal No.54 of 1990).
O. XLI, R.19
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Re admission of appeal dismissed for default
Petitioner-Corporation was aggrieved by order of High Court whereby its prayer for re-admission of High Court appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and default in appearance
Petitioner, instead of moving application under Order XLI, R.19, C.P.C. within thirty days, for the first time moved said application after long time seeking condonation of delay on flimsy grounds, which was dismissed by impugned order
Conduct and attitude of petitioner-Corporation in prosecuting the remedy before the High Court was causal, indifferent and far from being satisfactory
No adequate ground for special treatment other than an ordinary litigant to the petitioner, much less a "sufficient cause" for exercise of indulgence and discretion in its favour was made out
No ground for interference and cause for grant of leave, having been made out, petition was dismissed. Zulfiqar Ali v. Lal Din 1973 SCMR 573 rel.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioner is aggrieved by Sindh High Court order dated 14-3-2006 whereby its prayer for re-admission of High Court Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution and default in appearance on 2-5-2002 was declined.
2. Instead of moving an application under Order XLI, rule 19, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 within thirty days, petitioner, for the first time moved such application on 26-1-2006, seeking condonation of delay on flimsy grounds, which was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and dismissed vide order impugned in this petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned Advocate -on-Record for the petitioner and gone through the facts and circumstances leading to the impugned order of the High Court. Perusal of the order clearly tends to show that the conduct and attitude of the petitioner-Corporation in prosecuting the remedy before the High Court was casual, indifferent and far from being satisfactory. At any event, no adequate ground for special treatment other than an ordinary litigant to the petitioner, muchless a "sufficient cause", for exercise of indulgence and discretion in favour of the petitioner is made out. Law is well-settled and we may refer to Zulfiqar Ali v. Lal Din 1973 SCMR 573, which fully supports the view taken by the High Court and reaffirmed by us.
4. For the aforesaid facts, circumstances and reasons, there is no ground for interference and no case for grant of leave is made out. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./S-15/SC Petition dismissed.