Suit dismissed in default

2020 CLC 1318 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

O. IX, R. 3Suit dismissed in defaultApplication for restoration of suitLimitation"Sufficient cause"Suit was fixed for final arguments but no one appeared on behalf of plaintiffsTrial Court dismissed the suit for non-prosecutionPlaintiffs moved application for restoration of suit

Trial Court dismissed the application for restoration of suit being time barred but Appellate Court restored the same and High Court set aside the order of Appellate Court

Validity

Suit was fixed for final arguments after recording evidence of the parties

Trial Court should have decided the case on the basis of available material on record

Dismissal of suit in default after closing of evidence was not justified

Application for restoration of suit could be filed within three years, in circumstances

Present application was not time barred

When order of the Court was illegal and had prejudiced the case of a party then it was a "sufficient cause" for restoration of suit dismissed in default

Order passed by the High Court was set aside and that of Appellate Court was restored

Supreme Court observed that restoration of suit would be subject to payment of cost to be paid in trial Court

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

2017 MLD 1954 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

O.IX, Rr.3 & 4Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.163Suit dismissed in defaultApplication for restoration of suitLimitationPetition for restoration of suit was dismissed being barred by limitationValidityPlaintiffs applied for setting aside the dismissal order after prescribed period of limitationNothing was on record that plaintiffs had no knowledge with regard to dismissal of their suitOrder passed under O.IX, R.4, C.P.C. with regard to restoration of suit was not appealableAppeals filed before the District Judge and High Court were not competent

Order passed by the Trial court was upheld by the Supreme Court and appeal was dismissed in circumstances.