2014 PLP 1004 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD ZAHID — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 1004 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZAHID — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 1004 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 1004 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 1004 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD ZAHID — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S.115---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution---Legality---Revisional court dismissed revision petition filed by petitioner for non-prosecution---Plea of petitioner that his revision petition could not have been dismissed for non-prosecution in view of the law laid down in the case of Muhammad Sadiq v. Mst. Bashiran and 9 others (PLD 2000 Supreme Court 820)---Validity---Counsel for respondent could not controvert the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case---Order of revisional court whereby revision petition of petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution was set aside---High Court directed that revision petition filed by petitioner would be deemed to be pending before the revisional court, which shall decide the same on merits in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
- Barrister Haris Azmat for Petitioner.
- Sultan Mahmood Dar for Respondent No.2.
- 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.3 is father-in-law of the .petitioner and respondent No.4 is son of respondent No.3 who is abroad but respondents Nos.3 and 4 are the pro forma respondents and respondent No.2 is a decree-holder: When confronted with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that petitioner is deliberately delaying the proceedings before the executing court and the decree dated 21-11-2008 passed by the learned Family Court in favour of respondent No.2 could not be executed due to the revision petition and respondent No.2 is being deprived of the fruits of the decree passed in her favour. However, he has not controverted the above referred law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and submits that the revisional court below be directed to decide the revision petition expeditiously but within a reasonable given time by this Court.
- 3. In view of the fair stance taken by learned counsel for respondent No.2, this writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 4-7-2013 whereby the application for restoration of revision petition was dismissed' and the order dated 20-5-2013 whereby the revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed for non prosecution are set aside. Resultantly, the revision petition filed by the present petitioner will deem to be pending before the revisional court who shall decide the same on merits in accordance with law expeditiously but within three weeks from the next date of hearing i.e. 13-1-2014 which is already fixed before the revisional court. The parties are directed to appear before the revisional court on the above said date. The compliance report be submitted for perusal of this Court.
Headnotes / Summary
S.115
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition
Revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution
Revisional court dismissed revision petition filed by petitioner for non-prosecution
Plea of petitioner that his revision petition could not have been dismissed for non-prosecution in view of the law laid down in the case of Muhammad Sadiq v. Mst. Bashiran and 9 others (PLD 2000 Supreme Court 820)
Counsel for respondent could not controvert the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case
Order of revisional court whereby revision petition of petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution was set aside
High Court directed that revision petition filed by petitioner would be deemed to be pending before the revisional court, which shall decide the same on merits in accordance with law
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
ATIR MAHMOOD,J.
From the very out-set, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the revisional court could not have been dismissed in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as Muhammad Sadiq v. Mst. Bashiran and 9 others (PLD 2000 Supreme Court 820) which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. He has submitted that by accepting this petition, the revision petition pending before the revisional court be restored to its original number and the revisional court be directed to decide the same in accordance with law.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.3 is father-in-law of the .petitioner and respondent No.4 is son of respondent No.3 who is abroad but respondents Nos.3 and 4 are the pro forma respondents and respondent No.2 is a decree-holder: When confronted with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that petitioner is deliberately delaying the proceedings before the executing court and the decree dated 21-11-2008 passed by the learned Family Court in favour of respondent No.2 could not be executed due to the revision petition and respondent No.2 is being deprived of the fruits of the decree passed in her favour. However, he has not controverted the above referred law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and submits that the revisional court below be directed to decide the revision petition expeditiously but within a reasonable given time by this Court.
3. In view of the fair stance taken by learned counsel for respondent No.2, this writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 4-7-2013 whereby the application for restoration of revision petition was dismissed' and the order dated 20-5-2013 whereby the revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed for non prosecution are set aside. Resultantly, the revision petition filed by the present petitioner will deem to be pending before the revisional court who shall decide the same on merits in accordance with law expeditiously but within three weeks from the next date of hearing i.e. 13-1-2014 which is already fixed before the revisional court. The parties are directed to appear before the revisional court on the above said date. The compliance report be submitted for perusal of this Court. MWA/M-8/L Petition allowed.