1994 PLP 1196 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 20th November, 1993. ,JUDGMENT This judgment will govern Civil Revisions bearing Nos.1794, 1795, 1796, 1797, 1798 and 1799 of 1990, as all these arise out of identical factual background.

2. A few facts relevant for the disposal of these petitions are: that Muhammad Ilyas/respondent No.1 in C.R. No.1794 of 1990 instituted a suit on 25-2-1982 under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad, against Faisalabad Development Authority/petitioner, for seeking declaration to the effect that he was entitled to allotment of Plot No.41, St. No.2, Block-Y, Hassan Nasir Colony, Chak No.213/R.B., Tehsil and District Faisalabad, in accordance with the terms and conditions issued by the petitioner; that the Faisalabad Development Authority had no power to cancel the allotment of the aforesaid plot from name of the respondent. On these facts it was prayed that the petitioner be restrained from cancelling the allotment of plot in favour of the respondent. Likewise, Sheikh Ijaz Ahmad, Fazal Mahmood, Mubarak Ali, Matloob Hussain, and Muhammad Sharif, too, brought similar five separate suits with similar background in the same Court on the same date. These suits were contested. Necessary issues were framed. After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial Judge, vide judgments and decrees dated 15-4-1987 decreed all suits. Feeling dissatisfied, the Faisalabad Development Authority filed six appeals before the learned District Judge, Faisalabad, who entrusted these appeals to the Court of Ch. Muhammad Aslam Janjua, Additional District Judge, Faisalabad. On 6-2-1989, the learned counsel for the petitioner was busy before some other Court and in his absence the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed all the six appeals in following terms: "PRESENT: Abdul Ghaffar representative of the appellant. Respondent with his counsel. The appeal was called several times since the morning but the learned counsel for the appellant has not turned up. Mr. Abdul Ghaffar representative of the appellant has made statement that the counsel for the appellant does not want to argue the case/appeal as in the similar cases no appeal was preferred by the appellant. Although, Abdul Ghaffar representative is not competent to make statement for dismissal of the appeal but in spite of repeated calls the learned counsel for the appellant has not turned up. The appeal was adjourned for arguments on the last date at the request of the appellant subject to payment of cost. The appellant's counsel has neither paid the cost to the respondent nor has appeared in Court to argue the case in spite of repeated calls. In this situation there is no other way but to dismiss the appeal as the same has not been pressed and argued by the appellant. The appeal is therefore dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs." This is how these revision petitions have come to this Court

3. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that its counsel was busy before some other Court and could not enter appearance before the learned Additional District Judge, that the representative of the petitioner had no authority, whatsoever to make any statement, on behalf of the petitioner, that its counsel was no longer interested to present appellant. On these circumstances, learned appellate Court was obliged to decide the appeals on merit or postpone the hearing of the cases subject to payment of costs. On the strength of above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by no stretch of imagination the above referred to circumstances could be treated as non-pressing of the appeals. Accordingly, it was suggested that the revision petitions be accepted and the cases be remanded to the learned Additional District Judge for deciding the appeals afresh on merits after hearing the parties. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, were not able to controvert this position.

4. From the foregoing narration, it is clear to me that the judgments and decrees, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, dated 6-2-1989 in Appeals bearing Nos.140/13-88, 141/13-88, 142/13-88, 143/13-88, 139/14-88 and 144/13-88, cannot be sustained. It is clear that representative of the Faisalabad Development Authority had no power to make the statement; that the learned counsel for the petitioner was not interested to argue the appeals filed by the Faisalabad Development Authority. The Additional District Judge, was not correct in holding that the above circumstances was sufficient to hold that the learned counsel for Faisalabad Development Authority did not intend to press the appeals. The approach of the learned Appellate Court is clearly unwarranted by law and cannot be accepted.

5. In the light of whatever has been stated above, these revision petitions are hereby accepted. The impugned judgments and decrees dated 6-2-1989 passed by the learned appellate Court, are hereby set aside. These cases are remanded to the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad who shall treat the Appeals bearing Nos. 140/13-88, 141/13-88, 142/13-88, 143/13-88, 139/14-88 and 144/13-88, as pending and decide them afresh after hearing the parties and strictly in accordance with law. This order shall be subject to condition that the Faisalabad Development Authority/petitioner, pays compensatory cost of Rs.500, in each case, to each respondent. In case of default, the judgment and decrees passed by the learned appellate Court, shall remain in the field. H.B.T./F-126/L Revision petition accepted.