1991 PLP 2056 (SCMR)
NAJJAT HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus ALLAH DITTA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 2056 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | NAJJAT HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus ALLAH DITTA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 2056 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 2056 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 2056 (SCMR) (NAJJAT HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus ALLAH DITTA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Abdur Rashid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st July, 1991.
- Qazi Abdur Rashid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 26-1-1991 passed in R.SA. No.685 of 1984 C.M.No.220-C of 1991).
O.I, R.8 & OXXIII, R.1
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-- Restoration of appeal
Plaintiffs' representative suit having been dismissed, first appeal was pending when one of the plaintiffs therein, requested for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action
High Court allowed withdrawal of suit
Other plaintiffs having no knowledge of withdrawal of suit entered into a compromise and placed the same before High Court for disposal of appeal in terms of same
Such plaintiffs on coming to know that appeal had already been dismissed filed an application for restoration of appeal which was dismissed
Earlier appeal having been disposed of in 1964, persons interested therein did not make any attempt for restoration of appeal
High Court's finding that plaintiff was allowed permission to institute a fresh suit, proper course for him to adopt was to institute such a suit and to have the alleged compromise given effect to; was not open to challenge on any legal ground
If plaintiffs/petitioners wanted to give effect to a compromise through Court, they could do so by instituting a suit and filing compromise therein
After delay of considerable time, plaintiffs/petitioners' prayer for restoration of appeal was uncalled for
High Court's order being legal, just and proper, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 26‑1‑1991.
2. The facts, as narrated by the learned counsel, are that a suit No.722 of 1954 was filed in 1977 by the five plaintiffs. According to the learned counsel, it was a representative suit. The suit was dismissed on 31‑10‑1963. The first appeal was pending when the appellant Gulsher requested for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The High Court by its order dated 28‑9‑1967 allowed Gulsher, appellant to withdraw the suit. The learned counsel submitted that since all the persons interested in the case had no knowledge about the withdrawal of the suit as no notice was given to them, they were under the impression that the appeal was pending in the Court. In the meantime, a compromise was reached between all the persons interested in the case. This compromise was placed before the High Court for disposal of the appeal in terms of the compromise. When they came to know that the appeal had already been dismissed in default, an application was moved in the High Court by the petitioners for restoration of R.SA. No.685 of 1964 and its final disposal in terms of the compromise. This application was rejected by the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as it was a representative suit, notice should have been given to the petitioners and in the absence of such notice, the appeal could not be disposed of.
4. Admittedly, the earlier appeal had been disposed of in the year 1964. The petitioners did not make any attempt for the restoration of this appeal. The High Court had observed that "the plaintiff was allowed permission to institute a fresh suit or suits and the proper course for him to adopt is to institute such a suit and to have the alleged compromise given effect to".
5. The finding of the High Court is not open to challenge on any legal ground. In case the petitioners want to give effect to a compromise through Court, it could be done by instituting a suit and filing the compromise in it. After the delay of considerable time, the prayer of the petitioners for the restoration of the appeal is uncalled for. The order of the High Court is legal, just and proper.
6. There is no force in this petition. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. AA./N‑292/S Leave refused.