2009 PLP 556 (MLD)
Mst. HAMEEDA SHAMIM and others — Appellants Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER and 7 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 556 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. HAMEEDA SHAMIM and others — Appellants Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER and 7 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 556 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 556 (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: 2009 PLP 556 (MLD) (Mst. HAMEEDA SHAMIM and others — Appellants Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER and 7 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Naimur Rehman for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Sarwar Khan Advocate General Sindh along with Hafizullah Khan, Representative of Board of Revenue.
- Nadeem Akhtar for Respondent No.6.
- AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, J.---Heard Mr. Muhammad Naimur Rehman, for the appellant and Mr. Nadeem Akhtar for respondent No.6.
- 2. This High Court Appeal was fixed for regular hearing on 13th August, 2008 when on the said date of hearing none made appearance for the appellant despite repeated calls given to them nor any intimation was sent from their side, whereas Mr. Nadeem Akhtar was present for respondent No.6 along with Mr. M. Sarwar Khan, learned Additional Advocate-General; as such, the High Court Appeal was directed to stand dismissed for non-prosecution.
- 4. Mr. Nadeem Akhtar has pointed out that the Order Sheet itself mentions that repeated calls were given to the appellant and his learned advocate, but none appeared for them and no intimation was received as to the reason for their absence; he has further argued that the applications disclose some facts, but there is no mention as to on which date the appellant side came to know of the order of dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution and as to by whom they were informed and also as to the name of the clerk of the bench, who at a later stage intimated them that the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution. So also, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that. the delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the appellant side, which being inordinate one, cannot be condoned for the purposes of restoration application, more-so, for the reason that the said un-explained delay of each and every day has created valuable rights in favour of the respondents which cannot be taken away by them without there being any cogent reason for the same.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XLI, R.17
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5
Applications for restoration of appeal dismissed in default and for condonation of delay
Held, disputes between the parties pertaining to the pending litigation be heard and decided on merits instead of in summary manner and not on the basis of technicality, as such both restoration application as well as application for condonation of delay were allowed in High Court appeal; delay was condoned and the dismissal order was recalled and appeal was restored to file for disposal on merits, with the condition that the appellant/applicant shall pay cost of Rs.10,000 to the respondents within 30 days from the date of announcement of the present order, failing which both the applications shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, J.
Heard Mr. Muhammad Naimur Rehman, for the appellant and Mr. Nadeem Akhtar for respondent No.6.
2. This High Court Appeal was fixed for regular hearing on 13th August, 2008 when on the said date of hearing none made appearance for the appellant despite repeated calls given to them nor any intimation was sent from their side, whereas Mr. Nadeem Akhtar was present for respondent No.6 along with Mr. M. Sarwar Khan, learned Additional Advocate-General; as such, the High Court Appeal was directed to stand dismissed for non-prosecution.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed present two C.M.As., one for restoration of the High Court Appeal and the other for condonation of the delay in filing of the same.
4. Mr. Nadeem Akhtar has pointed out that the Order Sheet itself mentions that repeated calls were given to the appellant and his learned advocate, but none appeared for them and no intimation was received as to the reason for their absence; he has further argued that the applications disclose some facts, but there is no mention as to on which date the appellant side came to know of the order of dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution and as to by whom they were informed and also as to the name of the clerk of the bench, who at a later stage intimated them that the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution. So also, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that. the delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the appellant side, which being inordinate one, cannot be condoned for the purposes of restoration application, more-so, for the reason that the said un-explained delay of each and every day has created valuable rights in favour of the respondents which cannot be taken away by them without there being any cogent reason for the same.
5. The arguments from the side of the respondent appear to be very cogent; but it is also a settled principle of law that the disputes in between the parties pertaining to the pending litigation be heard and decided on merits instead of in summary manner or on the basis of technicality. As such, both restoration application as well as condonation application are hereby allowed; delay stands condoned and the dismissal order, dated 13th August, 2008 is hereby recalled and the appeal stands restored to file for disposal of the same on merits, provided that the appellant shall pay cost amount of Rs.10,000 to Respondent No.6 within 30 days from the date of announcement of this order, failing which both the applications shall be deemed to have stood dismissed. M.B.A./H-5/K Order accordingly.