| Case ID |
2b35742b-8d8c-447f-87f8-c78d41a046da |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Appeals Nos. 510, 934/2012, 1247/2014 and 50 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 28, 2016 |
| Hearing Date |
Apr 28, 2016 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled on the admissibility of civil revisions and whether they could be dismissed for non-prosecution after being admitted for regular hearing. The Court held that civil revisions can indeed be dismissed for non-prosecution, emphasizing the need for parties to actively pursue their rights in court. The judgment clarified that the revisional court's supervisory jurisdiction does not preclude dismissal for non-prosecution, reflecting the principle that the courts should not be burdened with cases where the parties are indifferent to their proceedings. The Court also noted that the inherent powers under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code could be exercised to restore a revision dismissed for non-prosecution, but only when sufficient cause is shown. The decision reinforced the importance of diligence in litigation and the consequences of neglecting to appear before the court. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the Supreme Court of Pakistan's examination of civil revisions under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, specifically addressing whether such revisions, once admitted to regular hearing, could be dismissed for non-prosecution. The Court determined that civil revisions are not merely procedural matters, but substantive rights that require active participation from the parties involved. This ruling emphasizes the importance of pursuing legal remedies diligently, as failure to do so could result in dismissal. The Court also clarified the discretionary powers of the revisional court, allowing it to dismiss cases for non-prosecution to manage court resources effectively. This decision has significant implications for litigants, as it sets a precedent for the handling of civil revisions and the obligations of parties to attend hearings. The ruling aligns with principles of justice, ensuring that the legal process is not exploited by indolent parties. Overall, this case highlights the balance between the right to seek revision and the responsibility to actively engage in the judicial process, establishing a clearer understanding of procedural expectations in civil litigation. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, A C, J.,
IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN,
KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A.No. 510 of 2012),
Niaz Wali Khan Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in C.A.No. 934 of 2012),
Gulzarin Kiyani Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.A.No. 1247 of 2012),
Nemo for Appellant (in C.A. No. 509 of 2006),
Gulzarin Kiyani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A.No. 510 of 2012),
Muhammad Bashir Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A.No. 1247 of 2014),
Syed Najam-ul-Hassan Kazmi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court. Amicus Curiae
|
| Petitioners |
others,
GHULAM QADIR
|
| Respondents |
others,
SH. ABDUL WADOOD
|
| Citations |
2016 SLD 2357,
2016 PLD 712
|
| Other Citations |
Muhammad Sadiq v. Mst. Bashiran and 9 others (PLD 2000 SC 820),
Mandi Hassan alias Mehdi Hussain and another v. Muhammad Arif PLD 2015 SC 137,
Allah Bachai and others v. Fida Hussain and others 2004 SCMR 615
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
|
| Sections |
115,
151,
107,
5,
181
|