| Case ID |
2321f990-bec4-42ec-aab7-5908e9e1e03f |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revision No. 49 of 2017 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 24, 2019 |
| Hearing Date |
Apr 11, 2019 |
| Decision |
The Quetta High Court, presided over by Justice ABDULLAH BALOCH, dismissed the petition filed by UMER DIN against MAIRAJ-UDDIN & OTHERS. The petitioner sought a declaration and permanent injunction regarding the sale of jointly owned land that was gifted and transferred when the petitioner was a minor. The court noted that the suit was decreed ex-parte due to the petitioner's and his counsel's repeated absences, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred. The petitioner’s argument that he was unaware of the legal proceedings and attributed the delay to his counsel's negligence was rejected, as the court found no sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal. References to previous cases affirmed the court’s decision to uphold the principle that the law assists the vigilant and not the indolent. Consequently, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality or jurisdictional defects in the lower courts' findings, resulting in the dismissal of the Civil Revision. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case Civil Revision No. 49 of 2017, adjudicated by the Quetta High Court on April 24, 2019, the petitioner UMER DIN challenged the ex-parte decree against MAIRAJ-UDDIN & OTHERS concerning the sale of jointly owned property. The property in question, originally gifted and transferred while the petitioner was a minor, became the focal point of legal contention when an advertisement for its sale was published without the co-owner's consent. Despite multiple opportunities to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, the petitioner and his legal representation failed to appear, leading to the suit being decreed ex-parte on December 23, 2015.
The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed primarily due to it being time-barred, as it was filed beyond the stipulated 30-day period following the ex-parte order. The court meticulously referenced precedents such as Mehdi Hassan through Legal Heirs v. Punjab Co-operative Bank and others (2019 YLR 1) and Mubarak Masih v. Muhammad Yaqoob (2019 CLC 321) to reinforce the non-acceptance of delays attributed to negligence or lack of legal acumen. The court emphasized the importance of punctuality in legal proceedings and upheld that the burden of explaining delays lies with the appellant. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional defects or illegality in the lower courts' decisions, rendering the Civil Revision unwarranted.
Legal authorities and scholars pointed out that the law favors the vigilant over the indolent, highlighting that negligence, whether by counsel or the petitioner, does not constitute a valid reason for condoning delays. The comprehensive analysis and reinforcement of established legal principles underscored the judiciary's stance on maintaining procedural integrity and upholding the sanctity of legal timelines.
This case underscores the critical importance of active participation and timely adherence to legal procedures in court proceedings. It serves as a precedent for future cases involving appeals and delays, emphasizing that the judiciary will not accommodate undue postponements without substantial justification. For legal practitioners and litigants, this judgment reinforces the necessity of preparedness, consistent representation, and the prompt filing of appeals to safeguard one's legal rights effectively. The Quetta High Court's decision reflects a steadfast commitment to justice, procedural propriety, and the balanced application of the law, ensuring that legal processes are respected and that justice is administered without prejudice or undue delay. |
| Court |
Quetta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Quetta High Court,
UMER DIN,
MAIRAJ-UDDIN & OTHERS,
Mr. Shah Jahan Khan, Advocate,
Mr. Syed Iqbal Shah, Advocate,
Mr. Saifullah Sanjarani, Assistant Advocate General
|
| Judges |
ABDULLAH BALOCH, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Mr. Shah Jahan Khan, Advocate,
Mr. Syed Iqbal Shah, Advocate,
Mr. Saifullah Sanjarani, Assistant Advocate General
|
| Petitioners |
UMER DIN
|
| Respondents |
MAIRAJ-UDDIN & OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2019 SLD 2182,
2019 PLJ 77
|
| Other Citations |
2019 YLR 1,
2019 CLC 321,
2016 SCMR 1821,
Mehdi Hassan through Legal Heirs and others v. Punjab Co-operative Bank and others,
Mubarak Masih v. Muhammad Yaqoob, 2019 CLC 321,
Mirza Muhammad Saeed v. Shahabuddin and 8 others (PLD 1983 SC 385),
Nek Muhammad v. A.C. Jhelum (1986 SCMR 1493),
WAPDA through its Chairman, and 4 others v. Karam Din (2005 YIR 341),
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rais Pir Ahmad Khan (1981 SCMR 37),
Ali Muhammad v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (2001 SCMR 1822),
Jhanda v. Maqbool Hussain and others (1981 SCMR 126)
|
| Laws Involved |
Specific Relief Act, 1877
|
| Sections |
42
|