Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: HABIB BANK LIMITED VS Respondent: HAIDER LADHU JAFFER and others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Qazi Faez Isa, Faisal Arab, Dost Muhammad Khan Title: HABIB BANK LIMITED vs HAIDER LADHU JAFFER and others Case No.: Civil Petition No,596-K of 2015 Date of Judgment:2017-01-18 Reported As: 2017 SCMR 466 Result: Leave granted
Judgment ORDER ' DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Courts for both the parties and have gone through the record. The law points needs extensive debate and consideration, which are reproduced below;-- (i) Whether a simple petition under section 151 of the C.P.C. Against the dismissed of the suit which resulted in a decree after the dismissal of the suit in default for appearance was maintainable and competent? (ii) How the respondents/plaintiffs conducted themselves throughout the proceedings in pursuing their remedy as whether they were vigilant or otherwise? (iii) Whether the petition filed for restoration in question was within the period of limitation because no date of getting knowledge of the dismissal of their petition for default in appearance has been mentioned in Civil Miscellaneous Application for restoration? (iv) Whether the process of the Court keeping in view the ordinary course of events and presumption attached therewith could be held to have been duly served on the respondents/plaintiffs about the date fixed for hearing in the main petition, and (v) Whether non-filing of form of address in terms of Order VI, Rule 19 of the C.P.C. Has adverse consequences on the respondents/plaintiffs? 2. The above law points require serious consideration and debate, therefore, leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to consider the same. The appeal be fixed in the last week of April 2017, because it is an oldest case on the original side. 3. Learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the appellants stated that after restoration, the learned trial Judge has started proceeding in the case, thus, if the same is taken to a logical
---
## Page 2
conclusion, the appeal in hand would become infructuous. Therefore, the proceedings before the learned trial Court may be stayed. The other side opposed the passing of such order by arguing that let the trial Court proceed with the case, but not to pronounce the final judgment in our view. It would be a futile exercise in case the appeal is allowed, thus, the proceedings before the learned trial Court are suspended trial Court are suspended.