2005 PLP 588 (MLD)
HAZRAT ALI — Applicant Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Planning and Development, having its Office at Rawalpindi/Islamabad and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 588 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HAZRAT ALI — Applicant Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Planning and Development, having its Office at Rawalpindi/Islamabad and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 588 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 588 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 588 (MLD) (HAZRAT ALI — Applicant Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Planning and Development, having its Office at Rawalpindi/Islamabad and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S.1---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VIII, R.1---Fatal accident---Suit for recovery of compensation amount---Failure to file written statement---Defendants having failed to file written statement despite chances were given to them, Court passed order debarring them from filing written-statement; thereafter matter crossed the stage of filing written-statement and plaintiff filed evidence in shape of affidavit---Nearly about five years thereafter, defendants filed application for recalling order of Court debarring them from filing written statement---Application filed by defendants not only was belated one but reasons mentioned for not filing written-statement, were neither cogent nor sufficient---Defendants having failed to avail opportunity to file written-statement, could not be permitted to file the same after such an inordinate delay and also after evidence had been filed---Even otherwise party was not absolved of pursuing its matter vigilantly by merely engaging an advocate---Application filed by defendant being meritless was dismissed.
- Mr. Sulehri, learned Advocate for the defendant No.2 has contended that in fact the lapse occurred due to dispute over the payment of professional fee to the previous advocate and the learned Advocate did not file written statement. He further contended that no counter affidavit has been filed by plaintiff against the affidavit filed in support of the present application. He lastly requested for permission to cross-examine the witness in case his application fails.
- Mr. Abdul Rauf learned Advocate who had previously been representing the defendant No.2 has stated that the application filed by learned Advocate is not maintainable as it was only the party which could file the affidavit and not the advocate. In support of his contention he referred to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Nawaz (PLD 2004 SC 489).
- Mr. Nasir Maqsood learned Advocate for the plaintiff contends that the application is belated one and also the reason mentioned in it for not filing the written statement is neither cogent one nor sufficient.
- The application is belated one and the reasons mentioned in it are not justifying or explaining the delay satisfactorily. The party having failed to avail an opportunity cannot be permitted to file the written statement after a prolonged time and that also after the evidence has been filed. Even otherwise the party is not absolved of pursuing its matter vigilantly by merely engaging an advocate. The case cited by the learned advocate is not relevant as the same is on the point of filing affidavit by the advocate, which is not the case here. Thus the present application is meritless and is dismissed. However, the defendant No.2 shall be given opportunity to cross-examine the witness and it is for them to avail it or not.
Headnotes / Summary
S.1
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VIII, R.1
Suit for recovery of compensation amount
Failure to file written statement
Defendants having failed to file written statement despite chances were given to them, Court passed order debarring them from filing written-statement; thereafter matter crossed the stage of filing written-statement and plaintiff filed evidence in shape of affidavit
Nearly about five years thereafter, defendants filed application for recalling order of Court debarring them from filing written statement
Application filed by defendants not only was belated one but reasons mentioned for not filing written-statement, were neither cogent nor sufficient
Defendants having failed to avail opportunity to file written-statement, could not be permitted to file the same after such an inordinate delay and also after evidence had been filed
Even otherwise party was not absolved of pursuing its matter vigilantly by merely engaging an advocate
Application filed by defendant being meritless was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
C.M.A.No.7157 of 2004.
The facts relevant to this order are that on failure of the defendants to file their written statement despite chances order dated 2-11-1999 was passed debarring them from filing written statement. Thereafter the matter crossed the stage of filing written statement and plaintiff was asked to file evidence in shape of affidavit, which he did file. Nearly about 5 years thereafter present application for recalling the order dated 2-11-1999 was filed. Today arguments have been heard on that application. Mr. Sulehri, learned Advocate for the defendant No.2 has contended that in fact the lapse occurred due to dispute over the payment of professional fee to the previous advocate and the learned Advocate did not file written statement. He further contended that no counter affidavit has been filed by plaintiff against the affidavit filed in support of the present application. He lastly requested for permission to cross-examine the witness in case his application fails. Mr. Abdul Rauf learned Advocate who had previously been representing the defendant No.2 has stated that the application filed by learned Advocate is not maintainable as it was only the party which could file the affidavit and not the advocate. In support of his contention he referred to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Nawaz (PLD 2004 SC 489). Mr. Nasir Maqsood learned Advocate for the plaintiff contends that the application is belated one and also the reason mentioned in it for not filing the written statement is neither cogent one nor sufficient. The application is belated one and the reasons mentioned in it are not justifying or explaining the delay satisfactorily. The party having failed to avail an opportunity cannot be permitted to file the written statement after a prolonged time and that also after the evidence has been filed. Even otherwise the party is not absolved of pursuing its matter vigilantly by merely engaging an advocate. The case cited by the learned advocate is not relevant as the same is on the point of filing affidavit by the advocate, which is not the case here. Thus the present application is meritless and is dismissed. However, the defendant No.2 shall be given opportunity to cross-examine the witness and it is for them to avail it or not. C.M.A. 7157 of 2004 stands disposed of in the above terms. To come up on 16-2-2005 for evidence. H.B.T./H-39/K Application dismissed.