| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1997 SLG 687 1997 SLD 687 1997 CLC 738 |
Sindh High Court
Civil Miscellaneous Application No.2620 of 1993 (in Suit No.122 of 1971), decision dated: 1st June, 1995
RASHEED AHMED RAZVI, J
Muzaffar-ul-Haq for Plaintiff. Ghulam Murtaza Malik for one of the Legal Heirs of Defendant No. 1
Civil Miscellaneous Application No.2620 of 1993 (in Suit No.122 of 1971), decision dated: 1st June, 1995
RASHEED AHMED RAZVI, J
Muzaffar-ul-Haq for Plaintiff. Ghulam Murtaza Malik for one of the Legal Heirs of Defendant No. 1
YUSUF ISMAIL--Plaintiff/er
VS
HUSSAIN MUMTAZ --Defendant/--Respondent
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 151---Dismissal of suit for non-prosecution---Application for restoration of suit on ground that office had wrongly fixed case for evidence, when in fact such case should have been fixed for orders on application---Material on record clearly indicated that suit was not dismissed for gross negligence of party or its counsel but due to error of office which had fixed case for evidence instead of placing the same for order on application---Non-appearance of counsel or parties could thus, have resulted in dismissal of application and not the suit---Suit was restored in circumstances. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious and Minority Affairs v. Mubina Begum 1985 CLC 231 ref. ORDER Through this application defendant is seeking restoration of his suit dismissed for non-prosecution on 22-2-1993, on the grounds that Office has wrongly fixed this case for evidence, when in fact this case should have been fixed for orders on his Applications bearing Nos.C.M.A. 686/93 filed on 1-2-1993 and C.M.A. 687/93 filed on the same date. In these two applications the plaintiffs have prayed for bringing legal heirs of defendant No.l on record and substitution of legal heir of defendant No.4. The order dated 22-2-1993 shows that one of the grounds for dismissal of suit was that the plaintiff had failed to file necessary application to implead legal heirs of the defendant No.4. I have scrutinised the case file and it appears that both these applications are available on record with the Office remarks "filed on 1-2-1993". But the office has not processed these applications till todate. This shows that prior to the date of dismissal these applications were filed. Office has not raised any objections on the applications. Therefore, on 22-2-1993 these applications should have been fixed for orders. In such view of the fact, there was no need of the plaintiff or his witness to be present in Court. Mr. Ghulam Murtaza, Advocate has vehemently urged that the cause shown by the plaintiff for restoration is not sufficient as he has not explained his and his counsel's absence on 22-2-1993. Neither Advocate for the plaintiff has filed his personal…
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