| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLD 3570 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.9868 of 2026
Presented By: (Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi) Judge
Date of hearing: 05.05.2026. Petitioner by: Mr. Muhammad Javaid Iqbal Qureshi, Advocate.
Respondent ex parte.
Civil Revision No.9868 of 2026
Presented By: (Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi) Judge
Date of hearing: 05.05.2026. Petitioner by: Mr. Muhammad Javaid Iqbal Qureshi, Advocate.
Respondent ex parte.
Nasir Mahmood
VERSUS
Zubair Ahmad
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: 115, IX-A, XIV
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 16(c)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section: 10-A
Summary The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his suit for specific performance, which had been dismissed for failing to deposit the remaining sale consideration. The High Court held that the trial court acted with material procedural irregularity because the case had been fixed for mediation under Order IX-A CPC, not for dismissal. After mediation failed, the court was required to restore the case to the normal trial process and provide the petitioner with notice and an opportunity to comply with the deposit order before dismissing the suit. The dismissal without hearing violated the principle of audi alteram partem and Article 10-A of the Constitution. Accordingly, the High Court restored the suit subject to the petitioner depositing the remaining court fee and balance sale consideration within 15 days, failing which the restoration would automatically lapse. Tagline A suit referred to mediation cannot be dismissed for procedural default without first restoring regular proceedings and giving the plaintiff a fair opportunity to comply with court directions. ORDER; MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.- Through this Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”), the petitioner calls in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Wazirabad, whereby his suit for specific performance and permanent injunction was dismissed for non-deposit of the balance sale consideration amounting to Rs.9,97,978/-, and the judgment dated 19.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Wazirabad, whereby the appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed. Briefly stated, the petitioner instituted a suit on 29.05.2025 seeking specific performance of a written agreement to sell along with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The suit was admitted for regular hearing and interim injunctive relief was granted subject to deposit of court fee of Rs.15,000/- and the remaining sale consideration of Rs.9,97,978/-. The respondent entered appearance and filed written statement. Despite opportunities granted on 04.06.2025 and 17.07.2025, the petitioner failed…