Case Details

Citation(s)
1972 SLG 251 1972 SLD 251 1972 SCMR 410
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 231 of 1972, decision dated: 30th October 1972
HAMOODUR RAHMAN C.J. AND ANWARUL HAQ, J
S. M. Zubair, Advocate instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN

VS

Mst. SHAHZADA BEGUM---Respondent

Law:

Section:

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. S-Condonation of delay ­Name of petitioner's counsel not shown in cause list of High Court for day when revision petition taken up for hearing-Review petition subsequently filed availing of time taken in obtaining certified copies of impugned orders-Explanation, held, satisfactory and delay in filing petition condoned. (b) Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), O. IX, r. 9 read with O. XVII, r. 2-Decree once 'made in suit-Suit could not be dismissed unless decree reversed on appeal-Provisions of O. XVII, r. 2 not applicable to case. ORDER ANWARUL HAQ, J.-In a suit for partition and separate possession of her share in the ancestral property, the respondent, Mst. Shahzada Begum, was granted a preliminary decree by the learned Senigr Civi17udge, Sahiwai, on 14-4-62 for 7/24 shares. The petitioner, who is a step-brother of the respondent, agitated against this preliminary decree right up to the Supreme Court but failed. When the case went back to the trial Court for passing the final decree, it was dismissed in default on 6-5-65 under Order IX, rule 8 of the C. P. C. owing to the absence of the plaintiff: Thereupon, the plaintiff-respondent filed an applica­tion under section 151 of the C. P. C. for the restoration of the suit, which application was granted by the learned Administrative Civil Judge, by his order dated the 15th May 1968, holding that after the passing of the preliminary decree the provisions of Order IX could not be invoked. The petitioner invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, but his revision petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 2-3-1972, observing that the order of the learned trial Court was-unexceptionable and had the support of Lachmi Narayan Manvary v. Balmakund Marwary (AIR 1924 P C 198). The learned. Judge dealt with the merits of the case in spite of the fact that the petitioner and his counsel were absent. The petitioner, thereafter, filed; Review Petition No. 31/C of 1972, which was also dismissed by the same learned Judge on the 20th April 1972, stating that the revision petition had not been dismissed in default but was disposed of on merits. Before we notice the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492