Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 3868 2025 SLD 3868 = 2025 CLC 316
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revisions Nos.456-P and 489-P of 2022, decided on 19th July, 2024.
Before Muhammad Naeem Anwar, J
Aslam Khan Chamkani for Petitioner. Syed Murtaza Zahid Gillani for
Respondents.

SARFARAZ KHAN ---Petitioner

VERSUS

PESHAWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director and others --Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 114,XVII,2,3,XLIII,1,IX,4,XLVII,1

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42,54

(a)    Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S.114, O.XVII, Rr.2, 3, O.XLIII, R.1 & O.IX, R.4---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54---Suits for declaration with perpetual and mandatory injunction--Filing of application for adjourning the suits sine die till the decision of pending writ petitions---Non-appearance of parties---Fixation of applications and not the suits for hearing when the notices for invoking powers under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C., were issued and suits were dismissed for non-compliance of order of Trial Court to argue the suits in absence of petitioner---Appeals preferred by the petitioner were dismissed being time barred and the review applications were dismissed being incompetent---Validity---Dismissal of suit under O.XVII, Rr.2 & 3, C.P.C. provides the remedy under O.IX, R.4, C.P.C., where the plaintiff may bring a fresh suit, or the court may restore the suit on the application filed by the plaintiff---Orders of the Trial Court dismissing the suits for non-compliance of order by invoking the provisions of O.XVII R.3, C.P.C were not in consonance with law---Order XLIII R.1, C.P.C., is in respect of the appeals against the orders, however, there is no reflection of the appeals under O.XLIII, R.1, C.P.C.---It is the duty of the court to be aware of the facts and proper application of law, however, the appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed being time barred against which review applications were filed which too were dismissed---Initial order of the Trial Court was not in consonance with law as the main suits before the Trial Court were not fixed for hearing rather the suits were fixed for hearing of the applications, which were submitted by the respondents to adjourn the cases sine die and the same were required to be decided after hearing the parties either in acceptance thereof or dismissal but in the absence of both the parties, the suits were dismissed which were not fixed before the court for hearing---Scope of application under S.114 read with O.XLVII, R.1, C.P.C., is limited and review is possible only when there is an error floating on the surface of the record which did not appear in the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register