| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1996 SLD 724 = 1996 CLC 512 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 787 of 1993, heard on 2nd November, 1995.
Presented By: Before Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J
Sh. Khalil-ur-Rehman for Petitioner. R.A. Zafar for
Respondent
Civil Revision No. 787 of 1993, heard on 2nd November, 1995.
Presented By: Before Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J
Sh. Khalil-ur-Rehman for Petitioner. R.A. Zafar for
Respondent
Mst. LITAFAT NISREEN---Petitioner
VERSUS
IMTIAZ ALI SHAH---Respondent
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0. XXXIII, Rr. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7---Suit in forma pauperis --- Application for permission to file suit for recovery of articles of dowry or value thereof filed by petitioner/lady in forma pauperis, was dismissed by Trial Court after more than ten years of its filing on ground that same was not presented by applicant in person, but his counsel---Application of lady/petitioner for permission to file suit in forma pauperis, not only was entertained by Court, but her statement was also recorded whereafter a report was requisitioned from the Collector-- Notice in terms of R.6 of O.XXXIII, C.P.C. was also issued to respondents/opposite-party, but report of Collector was received after about 10 years and thereafter application was dismissed solely on ground that it had not been presented in person as required by R.3 of O.XXXIII, C.P.C.---Rejection on ground that application had not been framed or presented in manner prescribed ')y Rr.2 & 3 of O.XXXIII, C.P.C. could only be made at the preliminary stage and without issuing any notice to opposite side and the Government Pleader in terms of R.6 of O.XXXIII, C.P.C.---Rule 5 of O.XXXIII, C.P.C. dealing with rejection of application, being penal in nature, must be strictly construed---Rule 6 of O.XXXIII, C.P.C., had itself ordained that when Court had found no reason to reject application on any of the grounds under R.5 of O.XXXIII, C.P.C. it should issue notice to opposite side and Government Pleader---issuance of notice to opposite side and Government Pleader had clearly indicated that no ground existed for rejecting application under. R.5 of O.XXXIII, C.P.C.---If application of petitioner/lady was incomplete, it must have been rejected in its infancy so that applicant could move a fresh application after removing defects---Order rejecting application was set aside and case was remanded to decide afresh. Abdul Rauf v. Mst. Khalida PLD 1968 Lah. 423; Mt. Inderwati v. Hari Ram and another" AIR 1937 Lah. 318; Mst. Chandrabhagabai v. Ramchandra Sampat Gathe AIR 1947 Nag. 14; Sibasandar Tiadi v. Koli Tihadhiani and others AIR…