| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 539 2025 SLD 539 = 2025 SCMR 395 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 3597-L of 2023 and Civil Petition No. 8-L of 2024, decided on 31st October, 2024. (On appeal from the Orders dated 13.10.2023 and 30.11.2023 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No. 67274 of 2023 and R.A. No. 78636 of 2023).
Present: Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ
Asad Javed, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Muhammad Aurangzeb Khan Daha, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent. Date of hearing: 31st October, 2024.
Civil Petition No. 3597-L of 2023 and Civil Petition No. 8-L of 2024, decided on 31st October, 2024. (On appeal from the Orders dated 13.10.2023 and 30.11.2023 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No. 67274 of 2023 and R.A. No. 78636 of 2023).
Present: Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ
Asad Javed, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Muhammad Aurangzeb Khan Daha, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent. Date of hearing: 31st October, 2024.
FARYAL ARIF LATIF ---Petitioner
VERSUS
ARIF LATIF ---Respondent
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O. IX, Rr. 8 , 9
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------Preamble---Process of civil litigation---Scope---Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is a consolidatory law which is primarily procedural in nature and can be defined as a branch of law administering and directing process of civil litigation---Rules framed under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are for advancing dispensation of justice, rather than supplementing or complementing it to defeat the ends of justice.Narsingh Das v. Mangal Dubey (1883) ILR 5A11 163 rel.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. IX, Rr. 8 & 9---Restoration of suit, application for---Past conduct of party--Petitioner/defendant was aggrieved of restoration of suit filed by respondent/plaintiff which was dismissed for non-prosecution---Plea raised by petitioner / defendant was that Trial Court was to see the past conduct of respondent/plaintiff---Validity---No obligation was imposed under Order IX, Rules 8 and 9 C.P.C. on the Court to first consider past record before restoring suit to its original position---Court was only required to determine whether sufficient cause for non-appearance was made out for the day when suit was dismissed for nonprosecution---Past conduct could be ruminated to assess seriousness or nonseriousness of a party in litigation---Due to any past reckless conduct, Court could impose costs for any default with a warning---Past conduct alone could not be considered a ground for dismissing restoration application, if sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date of hearing was otherwise made out---Supreme Court declined to interfere in orders passed by High Court affirming restoration of lawsuit which was dismissed for non-prosecution, as there was no illegality or perversity--Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.Rai Muhammad through legal heirs v. Ejaz Ahmed PLD 2021 SC 761; Kh. Muhammad Fazil v. Mumtaz Munawar Khan 2023 SCP 368; SKB-KNK Joint Venture Contractor v. Water and Power Development Authority 2022 SCMR 1615 and Zulifqar Ali v. Lal Din 1974 SCMR 162 ref.(c) Administration of justice-------Procedural…
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