| Case ID |
0c215c5e-28ab-4c2f-943d-2eca2975d372 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Appeal No. 13-P of 1989 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 16, 1990 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 23, 1986 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appellant's appeal, finding no merit in the arguments presented. The court upheld the dismissal of the earlier suit for non-prosecution under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which barred the subsequent suit under Order IX, Rule 9. The appellant had contested the validity of the dismissal, arguing that the hearing date was meant for settlement of issues rather than a formal hearing, and thus the dismissal should not apply to the subsequent suit. However, the court determined that the hearing on January 23, 1986, was indeed a meaningful hearing intended for the settlement of issues, and the appellant's absence necessitated dismissal. Additionally, the argument regarding the divisibility of defendants' interests was rejected, as the primary defendant was the vendee of the property in question. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without an order as to costs. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Shafiur Rahman and others versus Haji Muhammad Ashiq and fourteen others, the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered a pivotal decision on December 16, 1990. The case, cited as 1991 SLD 508 and 1991 PLD 443, revolved around Civil Appeal No. 13-P of 1989. The appellant, Qazi Saeed Akhtar alias Akhtar Ali, challenged the dismissal of an earlier suit filed on November 27, 1985, which was dismissed for non-prosecution under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) based on his absence on the hearing date, January 23, 1986. The appellant argued that the dismissal should not bar a subsequent suit under Order IX, Rule 9, asserting that the initial hearing was intended for settling issues rather than formal adjudication. He further contended that the dismissal should apply differently to various defendants based on their interests in the property dispute. However, the Supreme Court, presided over by Justices Shafiur Rahman, S. Usman Ali Shah, and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court clarified that the hearing on January 23, 1986, was indeed a meaningful hearing for the settlement of issues, and the appellant's absence justified the dismissal for non-prosecution. Additionally, the court rejected the appellant's argument regarding the divisibility of defendants' interests, emphasizing that the primary defendant was the vendee of the property. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural rules under the C.P.C., particularly Orders IX and X, and highlighted the court's role in ensuring that litigants adhere to procedural compliances to maintain the efficiency and integrity of the judicial process. This case serves as a significant reference for understanding the application of procedural rules in civil litigation within Pakistan's legal system. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Manager Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan
|
| Judges |
Shafiur Rahman,
S. Usman Ali Shah,
Ali Hussain Qazilbash
|
| Lawyers |
S. Muhammad Shah Badhshah,
Nur Ahmad Khan,
Abdul Hakim Khan,
Haji Bashir Ahmad
|
| Petitioners |
Qazi SAEED AKHTAR alias AKHTAR ALI
|
| Respondents |
Haji MUHAMMAD ASHIQ and 14 others
|
| Citations |
1991 SLD 508,
1991 PLD 443
|
| Other Citations |
Mst. Ghulam Sakina and 6 others v. Karim Bakhsh and 7 others PLD 1970 Lah. 412,
Rahim Bux and another v. Gul Muhammad and 2 others PLD 1971 Lah. 746,
Manager Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 678,
Makundi Singh and another v. Parbhu Dayal and another AIR 1926 Ali. 169,
Parbhu Dayal Singh and another v. Tribhuwan Singh and others AIR 1925 All. 425,
Damu Diga v. Vakrya Nathu and others AIR 1920 Bom. 54
|
| Laws Involved |
Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
Order IX, Rule 8,
Order IX, Rule 3,
Order IX, Rule 9,
Order X, Rules 1 and 2,
Order V, Rule 1
|