P L D 1994 Peshawar 17 (PLP)
M.C., PESHAWAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs MALIK BEVERAGES‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1994 Peshawar 17 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, CJ |
| Parties | M.C., PESHAWAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs MALIK BEVERAGES‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1994 Peshawar 17 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1994 Peshawar 17 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, CJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1994 Peshawar 17 (PLP) (M.C., PESHAWAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs MALIK BEVERAGES‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. Mir Muhammad for Petitioner.
- Hidaytullah Khan for Respondents No.1 and 5.
- Akhtar Ali for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 15th September, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O. VI, R.17 & S.115‑‑‑Disposal of appeal by Appellate Court without granting opportunity of hearing to parties‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Appellate Court had heard arguments on application for amendment of written statement and it was to announce orders on the application only‑‑‑Appellate Court, thereafter, was to decide appeal on merits with opportunity of hearing to parties‑‑‑Appellate Court was not supposed to dispose of appeal first on basis of arguments on the application for amendment of written statement‑‑‑Appellate Court had not heard arguments on main appeal and as such disposal of main appeal by way of impugned judgment and order would not stand to any valid reason‑‑‑Judgment and order of Appellate Court was set aside and case was remanded with direction to first dispose of application for amendment of written statement and thereafter, to proceed in appeal in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
This case has to go back to the District Judge for decision on merits. Vide his order dated 30‑1‑1984 the case was posted to 14‑2‑1984 for arguments on the petitioner's application for amendment and also on merits. But afterwards on 11‑11‑1984 the Court recorded an order:‑‑ "Counsel for the parties present. Arguments on application heard. To come up for orders on 20‑11‑1984." (Underlining is for emphasis). On 20‑11‑1984 there was recorded one order‑sheet:‑‑ . "Representative of the respondent‑company present. Vide my detailed judgment, I dismiss this appeal with costs." Another order‑sheet was recorded:‑‑ "N.B.‑‑In view of the dismissal of the appeal on merits, the application filed by the appellant‑Corporation under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. for making amendments in the written statement is also dismissed being infructuous."
2. In the judgment there has been no reference to the dismissal of the petitioner's application for amendment of the written statement. Nota bene order dated 20‑11‑1984 rather itself speaks that since the appeal was dismissed on merits as such the application for amendment of the written statement has become infructuous. The learned District Judge appears to have misconstrued himself. He has heard arguments on the application only and he was to announce orders on the application only. He was afterwards to decide the appeal on merits with opportunity of hearing to the parties. Ordinarily too the Court was supposed that he was first to hear arguments on the petitioner's application for amendment of his written statement and in case he was to accept the petitioner's application he was to call for an amended written statement and thereafter to frame additional issue if need be and also to remand the case for fresh evidence. He was not supposed to dispose of the appeal first which was to result in the dismissal of the application having been rendered infructuous. There has not been apparently heard arguments on the main appeal and as such the disposal of the main appeal by the impugned' judgment and order does not stand to any valid reason. Consequently this revision petition is accepted, judgment and order of the Court of District Judge is set aside and case is remanded with direction to fist dispose of the petitioner's application for amendment of written statement and thereafter to proceed in the case in accordance with law Parties are‑ left to bear their own costs. A.A./1498/P??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded