| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 659 2013 SLD 659 2013 CLC 331 |
Sindh High Court
H.C.A. No.143 of 2010, decision dated: 9-10-2012
AQEEL AHMED ABBASI AND FAROOQ ALI CHANNA, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
H.C.A. No.143 of 2010, decision dated: 9-10-2012
AQEEL AHMED ABBASI AND FAROOQ ALI CHANNA, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
ANWAR KHAN and 2 others
VS
FOUZIA KHAN and another
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XXII,R.2,O.IXR.9,O.VII,R.26
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XXII,R.2,O.IXR.9,O.VII,R.26
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXII, R. 2, O. IX R. 9 & O.VII, R.26---Suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and application for restoration of the suit was also dismissed---One of the plaintiffs had died during pendency of suit --- Abatement of suit---Scope---Question as to whether after death of the plaintiff, proceedings would abate, primarily depended on the nature of the cause of action---Any action might abate on death of a party but cause of action might survive---Suit in the present case, was filed by three plaintiffs, one of which had died during pendency of suit, and as such right to sue remained alive---Dismissal of suit for non-prosecution, therefore, seemed to be illegal and contrary to the express provisions of Order XXII, Rule 2, C.P.C.---Provisions of Order XXII, R.2, C.P.C. had to be strictly construed and entire suit would not be taken to have abated simply because some of the plaintiffs had died whereas the legal representatives had not been brought on record---Court itself was competent to bring on record legal representatives of deceased plaintiff as list of legal heirs was attached with plaint in terms of Order VII, Rule 26, C.P.C.---High Court set aside the impugned orders---Intra-court appeal was allowed in circumstances. Ms. Shabana Ishaque for Appellants. Mirza Saeed Baig for Respondent No.1. Rafiullah for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 9th October, 2012. ORDER AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.--- Through instant High Court appeal the appellants have impugned two orders i.e. (1) Order dated 16-3-2009, whereby the Suit No.143 of 2010 filed by the appellants was dismissed for non- prosecution and (2) Order dated 19-4-2010, whereby the application under Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. filed by the appellants for restoration of suit was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. While making submissions, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Suit No.143 of 2010 was filed by three plaintiffs out of which Abdul Rasheed, plaintiff No.2 had died and on the fateful date i.e. 16-3-2009. the matter was fixed "for further order as amended titled was not filed as per order". It has been contended by the learned counsel…
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