Dismissal of suit for non-prosecution

2023 MLD 860 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 163Dismissal of suit for non-prosecutionScope

Where an application for the restoration of a petition was filed after the lapse of 80 days, the High Court observed that under Art. 163 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the prescribed limitation was 30 days from the date of the dismissal of the suit and held that the application was time-barred.

2022 YLR 293 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

O. IX, R. 3Dismissal of suit for non-prosecutionScopePlaintiff sought restoration of suit dismissed for non-prosecutionPlaintiff during the proceedings of the suit had remained absent for four consecutive dates

Conduct of the plaintiff had remained unsatisfactory but since technicalities in dispensation of justice were to be avoided and as far as practicable the cases were to be decided on merits and as the application for restoration of suit was filed well within time, therefore, in the larger interest of justice suit was restored subject to payment of cost.

2021 YLR 631 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

O. IX, Rr. 3 & 4Dismissal of suit for non-prosecutionScope

Parties were mindful that on the next date, the court would proceed with the matter as per order announced on previous date and it was difficult to contend that the order regarding a business could be passed, which was not fixed before the Court.

2021 YLR 631 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

O. IX, Rr. 3 & 4Dismissal of suit for non-prosecutionSuit, not fixed for hearingEffect

Petitioner impugned the concurrent dismissal of his application for restoration of suit which was dismissed for non-prosecution

Validity

Suit was at the stage of arguments/decision upon application for temporary injunction when it was dismissed for non-prosecution which, as a matter of course, could not have been dismissed being beyond the mandate of the proceedings fixed for that particular date i.e. decision upon application for temporary injunction

Impugned order amounted to a surprise order because as per law when an application was fixed then any other order except an order upon said application amounted to a surprise order, which was not warranted by the law

High Court while adverting to the ground qua delay in filing of application for restoration observed that such type of order was without jurisdiction and void, therefore, question of limitation did not arise

Revision petition was allowed.

2018 CLD 88 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9, 22 & 27Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, R. 9Dismissal of suit for non-prosecutionRestorationJurisdiction of Banking CourtScope"Final order" occurring in S. 22, Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001Interpretation

Order passed by Banking Court dismissing suit for non-prosecution partook character of an intermediate order which related to procedure and not to substance of dispute involved in the case

Such order, by its very nature, could not finally dispose of rights of parties on merits and also did not deal with ancillary and incidental matters

Powers were granted to Court under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to dismiss for non-prosecution any suit in which plaintiff had not appeared and a remedy was also provided to delinquent plaintiff to approach to court for recall of such order in case he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on appointed date

Such order and remedy provided in Civil Procedure Code, 1908 related purely to procedure and did not entail any adjudication by court on rights of parties

Order dismissing suit for non-prosecution was not within definition of 'final order' as contemplated by S. 22 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Bar contained in S. 27 read with S. 22 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 could not have any application for excluding powers that inhered in Banking Court to make use of provisions of O. IX, R.9, C.P.C. for recalling of an order dismissing suit for non-prosecution

Term 'final order' appearing in S. 22 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 should, therefore, be interpreted in a manner that was consistent with scope, context and principle for which Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was promulgated

Order through which suit or application for leave to defend was dismissed for non-prosecution did not fall in either of the two categories of orders and such was an intermediate order which fell in between the two

Bar contained in S. 27 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was not applicable to such kind of intermediate orders

Banking Court as defined in Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 had necessary power to allow application to restore suit/application for leave to defend dismissed for non-prosecution on sufficient grounds being shown for non-appearance of counsel/party in terms of O. IX, R. 9, C.P.C.

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 YLR 1768 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

O.IX, Rr.3 & 9Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 163Dismissal of suit for non-prosecutionDate of hearingScopeSuit was dismissed for non-prosecution on the date fixed for filing written statementPlaintiff filed application for restoration of suit after eight months which was dismissed on grounds of limitationValidity

Suit might be dismissed if neither party had appeared on the date of 'hearing' which would be defined as date on which court would examine record of pleadings to understand contentions of pleadings or date on which issues were formulated

Date fixed for filing written statement was not to be termed as date of hearing

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

2014 CLC 1586 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 54Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10, O.VII, R.11, O.IX, Rr.3, 9 & S.115Suit for declaration and injunctionDismissal of suit for non-prosecution"Date of hearing"Scope

Suit was fixed for decision on applications under O.I, R.10 and O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. when it was dismissed for non-prosecution

Validity

On the alleged date of hearing suit was not fixed for hearing but two miscellaneous applications under O.I, R.10, C.P.C. filed by intervener and application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. filed by defendants were fixed for hearing

Two applications could have been dismissed for non-prosecution by Trial Court and suit should have been fixed for hearing

Trial Court proceeded in the matter without applying judicious mind and acted with material irregularity in exercise of its respective jurisdiction

Order passed by Trial Court was set aside and application for restoration of suit was allowed resulting in restoration of suit filed by plaintiff

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

2013 YLR 2000 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

O. IX, R. 13Dismissal of suit for non-prosecutionRemedy of plaintiffScope

Court could set aside such order on plaintiffs application only after showing sufficient cause for his previous non-appearance

Paramount consideration for court in such case would be to do complete justice between parties.

2013 CLC 1763 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 96 & 115RevisionMaintainabilityDismissal of suit for non-prosecution

Decree would follow even if the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and as such only a first appeal should lie under S.96, C.P.C.

Revision filed against the order of dismissal of the suit was not maintainable and impugned order was coram non judice.