Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 8,9

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.IX, Rr.8 & 9---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Suit for specific performance---Suit was dismissed for non-prosecution---Application for restoration of suit---"Sufficient cause"---Scope---Application for restoration of suit dismissed in default was dismissed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court accepted the same---Validity---Earlier suit was dismissed for want of prosecution but same was restored on the basis of conceding statement of defendant subject to payment of costs---Plaintiff had not paid said costs and even no application for extension of time for payment of the same had been moved---Non-deposit of costs would mean that suit was never restored---Application for restoration of suit was lacking any sufficient cause in the present case---Applicant had moved present application on the basis of general and vague assertions wherein no reason for his absence or his counsel had been mentioned---Application was not supported by an affidavit of the counsel---Applicant for seeking indulgence of the Court had to demonstrate "sufficient cause' for his non-appearance---Suit was to be decided on merits instead of knocking out the parties on the basis of technicalities but whenever a suit was dismissed in default then plaintiff should mention a cause for such lapse---Provisions of O.IX, R.9, C.P.C. could not be dispensed with merely on the ground that suit was to be decided on merits---Court had to keep the scale of justice equal and provisions of O. IX, R.9, C.P.C. could not be used for the advantage of one party and disadvantage of the other---Parties should be vigilant while prosecuting their cause---Trial Court had rightly applied the law to the subject and application for restoration of suit was dismissed through a well-reasoned order---Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and that of Trial Court was restored---Application for restoration of suit was dismissed, in circumstances---Revision was allowed accordingly. Muhammad Arshad & CO. through Muhammad Arshad v. Zila Council, Pakpattan Sharif, through District Nazim Pakpattan Sharif and others 2006 SCMR 1450 and Muhammad Tariq…

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