| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3004 = 1981 SLD 3004 = 1981 PLD 72 |
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 96 of 1980, decided on 5th October 1980.
Presented By: Shah Nawaz Khan, C J
Abdul Latif Afridi for Petitioner. S. Iamadud Din Gillani for
Respondent.
Civil Revision No. 96 of 1980, decided on 5th October 1980.
Presented By: Shah Nawaz Khan, C J
Abdul Latif Afridi for Petitioner. S. Iamadud Din Gillani for
Respondent.
GUL AMIN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners
VERSUS
Haji MUHAMMAD AKRAM-Respondent
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 115, O. XXIII, r. 1
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 115 read with O. XXIII, r. 1--Revision-Application for with drawal of suit with liberty to sue afresh-Non joinder of parties, wrong drafting of plaint and omission to include documents-Held, not formal defects within meaning of O. XXIII, r. 1--Failure of plaintiff to prove his case-No ground for allowing withdrawal of suit with liberty of suing again-Order allowing withdrawal of suit. with liberty to sue afresh-Held, a decision of a case within meaning of S. 115 and open to revision if made on grounds not- covered by O. XXIII, r. 1-Lower Courts must exercise judicial discretion and apply their mind before allowing such withdrawal of suits-Order of District Judge allowing withdrawal of suit with permission to bring a fresh suit passed without giving any reasons and without considering objections of opposite-party taken against such withdrawal-Held, constitutes materially irregular exercise of jurisdiction and, therefore, liable to, be set aside. Ahmad Din and 3 others v. Town Committee 1972 S C M R 205 and Ahmad Mian v. Malik Bahadur and 21 others N L R 1979 Civil 169 ref. Date of hearing : 5th October 1980. JUDGMENT Civil Appeal No. 30/13 of 1979 was pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Malakand at Batkhela. Haji Muhammad Akram was the appellant and Gul Amin etc. were the respondents. On 12-10-1979 the appellant submitted an application before the Additional District Judge, Batkhela praying that he may be allowed to withdraw his suit which had earlier been decided by a Civil Judge of Dargai, he being the plaintiff, and to be allowed to- institute a fresh suit. The respondents were called upon- to reply and they in their…