| Case ID |
42d35104-ee44-41c7-a966-60e95a7f2778 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.421-K of 198 |
| Decision Date |
May 24, 1990 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court held that the non-appearance of the appellant constituted non-prosecution, which is addressed under Article 168 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The decision emphasized that the failure to deposit costs for service on the respondent is also a form of non-prosecution. The court clarified that the provisions of Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code apply to this case, particularly concerning the restoration of appeals dismissed under Rule 17 for default of appearance. The court concluded that the application for restoration was barred by limitation under Article 168, reinforcing that the dismissal was for non-prosecution, and no inherent powers could be invoked as per Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the Limitation Act and Civil Procedure Code concerning the dismissal of appeals due to non-prosecution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the implications of non-appearance by the appellant and the failure to deposit costs for service. The case highlights the legal nuances between dismissal for want of prosecution and for default of appearance, ultimately concluding that both fall within the scope of Article 168 of the Limitation Act. This ruling is significant for practitioners in the field of civil law, especially regarding appeal processes and the importance of adhering to procedural requirements. Legal professionals must understand these distinctions to effectively navigate the complexities of civil litigation and ensure timely filings to avoid dismissal. The case also cites several precedents that provide context on the application of these legal principles, reinforcing the necessity for counsel to be vigilant in their representation. Keywords: Limitation Act, Civil Procedure Code, non-prosecution, appeal dismissal, legal representation, procedural requirements, Supreme Court of Pakistan. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA,
ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON
|
| Lawyers |
SA. Samad Khan
|
| Petitioners |
SINDH INDUSTRIAL TRADING ESTATES
|
| Respondents |
WEST PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
|
| Citations |
1991 SLD 476,
1991 PLD 250
|
| Other Citations |
Lal Dino and others v. Deputy Commissioner and others 1982 SCMR 201,
Fazil Khan v. Muhammad Azim and others PLD 1954 Bal. 21,
Messrs Rehman Weaving Factory v. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan PLD 1981 SC 21,
Kaviraj Rai v. Dass and others AIR 1953 All. 368
|
| Laws Involved |
Limitation Act (IX of 1908),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
168,
41
|