1992 PLP 2350 (CLC)
ASHRAF BIBI and others ‑‑‑ Appellants Versus LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and others ‑‑‑ Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 2350 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munir A Shaikh, J |
| Parties | ASHRAF BIBI and others ‑‑‑ Appellants Versus LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and others ‑‑‑ Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (v of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 2350 (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 1992 PLP 2350 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Munir A Shaikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 2350 (CLC) (ASHRAF BIBI and others ‑‑‑ Appellants Versus LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and others ‑‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nisar Ahmed Butt for Appellants.
- A.R. Arshad for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 14th April, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ O.XLI, R.19 ‑‑‑ Dismissal of appeal in default ‑‑‑ Re‑admission ‑‑‑ Application for re‑admission of appeal was made on the same day ‑‑‑ Such application ultimately resulted in dismissal ‑‑‑ Validity ‑‑‑ Court time being up to 4‑00 p.m., Court had ignored the fact that application for re‑admission had been made on the same day within Court time ‑‑‑ Dismissal of appeal in haste without waiting till closing hour of day was not. warranted ‑‑‑ Law favours adjudication of rights of parties on merits rather than in summary manner‑‑‑Impugned order was not sustainable, for lower Appellate Court had acted highly arbitrarily in the matter of exercise of discretion which had resulted in miscarriage of justice and failure to adjudicate rights of appellant ‑‑‑ Appeal was re‑admitted and case was sent to lower Appellate Court for disposal of appeal on merits.
Judgment & Decree
Nisar Ahmed Butt for Appellants. A.R. Arshad for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 14th April, 1992. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13‑40‑1980 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, through which the application filed by the appellants before the said Court for re‑admission of appeal dismissed for non‑prosecution on 15‑3‑1975 has been rejected.
2. The record which is available has been perused. The appeal of the appellants was dismissed on 15‑3‑1975. According to the record the case was called and nobody appeared on behalf of the appellants, therefore, the same was dismissed for default.
3. Application for re‑admission of the appeal was submitted on the same day. The reason given in the application was that the, appellants' learned counsel had gone to some other Court to attend other cases and when he came back the appeal had already been dismissed for non‑prosecution.
4. The learned lower Appellate Court took the view that no affidavit was attached with the application to support the plea raised in the application and also that no reason was given which prevented the appellants to appear before the Court when the case was called. I am afraid the learned lower Appellate Court has taken too technical view of the matter. It has altogether been ignored that the application was submitted on the same day promptly. The Court time was up to 4‑00 p.m., therefore, the haste in dismissal of appeal was not called for which could be kept in waiting till the closing hours of the day. The law favours adjudication of the rights of the parties on merits rather than disposal of the same in a summary manner. The order under appeal is not sustainable, as the learned lower Appellate Court acted highly arbitrarily in the matter of exercise of discretion in the matter. which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and failure to adjudicate the rights of the appellants.
5. This appeal is accepted. Order dated 13‑10‑1980 is set aside. The application moved by the appellants for re‑admission of appeal is accepted and the appeal re‑admitted. The case is sent back to the learned lower Appellate Court for disposal of appeal on merits. There will be no order as to costs. A.A./A‑216/L Appeal accepted.