Dismissal of suit in default

2025 PLD 97 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 12(2)Dismissal of suit in defaultApplication for recalling of the dismissal orderDismissal of said application for non-prosecutionSubsequent application under S. 12(2) of C.P.C.Application under S. 12(2) of C.P.C was concurrently rejectedPendency of revision petition before the High Court for a long time due to conduct of revision petitionerEffectCosts, imposition ofHigh Court observed that frivolous litigations are initiated by parties without any locus standi

Present case was one of the classic examples where present application remained pending before this (High) Court for the last six years where on each date, the petitioner requested adjournment

On one hand, frivolous litigation may cause and increase the backlog and on the other hand, it creates hurdle in smooth administration of justice and for such like matters it was held time again by the Superior Courts that incompetent petition requires its burial from its inception

Petitioner had availed remedy under O. IX, R. 13 and lastly, he filed application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. which was not maintainable

Hence, it was rightly dismissed by the lower Court

In wake of the conduct of the petitioner for the last six years, costs of Rs. 50 000/- was imposed on him, to be recovered by the Executing Court along with decreetal amount

Revision was dismissed with costs accordingly.

2025 PLD 97 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 12(2) & O. IX, R. 13Dismissal of suit in defaultApplication for recalling of dismissal orderDismissal of said application for non-prosecutionSubsequent application under S. 12(2) of C.P.C.Maintainability

When the remedy under O. IX, R. 13, C.P.C. was availed and the application was dismissed for non-prosecution, the petitioner was required to submit the application for restoration of the application which was dismissed for non-prosecution, but he filed the application and had sought setting aside ex-parte decree through revival of the suit by filing an application under S. l2(2), C.P.C.

Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. and revival of suit in consonance with sub-clause (2) of S. 12 is for an aggrieved person but on the ground of fraud, mis-representation and want of jurisdiction

Application under S. l2(2), C.P.C was not a substitute for the application for setting aside decree under O. IX, R. 13, C.P.C., rather grounds of the application under S. 12(2) C.P.C., were different to the application, which could be seen and adjudged within the four corners provided by the legislature

No doubt, suit of the respondent/plaintiff had been decreed against the petitioner ex-parte but due to lethargic attitude of the petitioner/defendant

Record also reflected that the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of a specific amount was also dismissed for non-prosecution

No doubt, in appropriate cases, application filed under S. l2(2), C.P.C., required submission of written reply, framing of issues and recording of evidence but not in each case, as it depended upon facts and circumstances of each case

Revision was dismissed with costs accordingly.

2015 GBLR 24 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Judicial Precedent

O. IX, R. 8 & O. XVII, R. 2Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Arts. 60, 69 & 71Dismissal of suit in defaultSuit was concurrently dismissed by the Trial Court and appellate court below for non-prosecutionChief Court dismissed, concurrent findings of courts belowValidity

Order sheets maintained in the case, were very short, ambiguous, which revealed that Presiding Officer of the Trial Court was in a hurry and not in a state of mind to maintain the justice in accordance with law

Presiding Officer as well as the Reader of the court, were unaware of the importance of the order sheet in judicial matters and they acted like "Administrative Officers"

Presiding Officer had used the words "suit called for hearing" in the order sheet dated 20-9-2008 whereby, suit had been dismissed for non-prosecution

Suit had not been fixed, either for framing of issues or for adducing of evidence

Neither the case was fixed for final arguments, nor for "hearing" of the suit

Order sheet was maintained by the Reader of the court and the Reader under the law was authorized just to adjourn the case in absence of the Presiding Officer and to fix the case for "hearing"

District Judge/appellate court below, instead of curing the legal error committed by the Trial Court, agreed with the Trial Court

Order whereby the Trial Court, dismissed the suit, was without jurisdiction and void ab initio; it could not be allowed to stand

Chief Court, had very rightly recalled the orders passed by the courts below

Supreme Appellate Court, agreed with the Chief Court, petition for leave to appeal was declined and the impugned order was maintained

Case was remitted to the Trial Court with the direction to issue notice to the parties to attend the court, fixing any date in the summons and proceed the suit to adjudicate the same on merits.