1985 PLP 1523 (MLD)
NAFEES-UD-DIN — Petitioner Versus Mst. SABAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1523 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Amjad Khan, J |
| Parties | NAFEES-UD-DIN — Petitioner Versus Mst. SABAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1523 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1523 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Amjad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1523 (MLD) (NAFEES-UD-DIN — Petitioner Versus Mst. SABAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Qadri for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 115 and O. XVII, r. 2--Restoration of suit--Requirements of revisional jurisdiction--Concurrent findings of Courts below as to absence of sufficient cause for restoration of suit related to question of pure fact--No jurisdictional error in the nature of non-reading or misreading of evidence--Concurrent findings of Courts below, held, concluded matter and High Court could not interfere in revisional jurisdiction.
O. XVII, r. 2--Dismissal of suit in default--Appropriate procedure- Suit having been adjourned on last date, provisions of 0, XVII, r.2, held, were applicable for dismissal of suit in circumstances.
O. XVII, r. 3--Dismissal of suit--Plea that trial, Court should have acted under
0. XVII, r. 3, C.P.C. and should have decided case accordingly having not been raised in Courts below and being not question of law, held, could not be raised and given effect to in revisional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
Concurrent findings by the two Courts below as to the absence of sufficient cause for restoration of the petitioner's suit dismissed in default, relate to question of pure fact and really conclude this Civil Revision because they have not been shown to have resulted from any jurisdictional error of the nature of non-reading or misreading of evidence.
2. However without disputing the correctness of those findings learned counsel argues that instead of proceeding to dismiss the suit for default in appearance on 1-3-1972, trial Court should have acted under rule 3 of Order XVII of the C.P.C. This contention is not sustainable on the present record because it has not been shown that on the previous date time may have been granted to the petitioner to produce evidence. Rather, the trial Court's order itself shows that the suit was adjourned on the last date. Hence, Order XVII, rule 2 was the only appropriate provision to be applied. Moreover, the foregoing contention does not appear to have been raised in the Court below any since it does not raise a question of pure law, therefore, effect thereto, cannot be given in this Civil Revision. Contention is accordingly repelled.
3. There is no substance in the Civil Revision which is, therefore, dismissed in limine. A. A. Revision dismissed.