Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KARIM BAKHSH VS Respondent: LAL MUHAMMADHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah
1988 S C M R 1373(2)
1988 S C M R 1373(2)
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
KARIM BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner
versus
LAL MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.774 of 1983, decided on 23rd May, 1983.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7‑3‑1983 in R.S.A. No.747 of 1969).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal refused where question involved was hypertechnical.
Ch. Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition by a vendee in a pre‑emption matter calls in question the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court, and the sole ground pressed by the learned counsel is that the plaint instead of being presented within time before a civil Court, Lodhran was presented before a civil Court at Multan. When section 21, C.P.C. was brought to the notice of the learned counsel with regard to wrong filing of the suit before a wrong Court and it was asked whether the petitioner had suffered any prejudice in so far as the decision of the suit on merits is concerned, he answered in the negative and remained unable to press this point any further. Instead, he half‑heartedly argued that a suit once dismissed under Order IX, Rule 8 could not have been restored without an application.
Without going into the details of the question raised by the learned counsel it has to be observed that the petitioner raised this question for the first time before the High Court. Secondly, it has to be observed that the dismissal of suit and its restoration were not treated as two independent actions by the trial Court. The one order was in continuation of the other order, as found by the High Court. The objection therefore, is hypertechnical and leave cannot be granted on such a ground. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
M.B.A./K‑57/S Petition dismissed.