ALICO CIVIL ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, LAHORE vs Syeda MUSHTRI
This civil revision petition challenges an order dated 26 April 1972 passed by the trial court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for permission to sue in forma pauperis and directed the deposit of court-fee solely on the basis of a report submitted by the Collector. The core legal question is whether an application to sue as a pauper can be dismissed without following the mandatory procedure prescribed for examining witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that relying entirely on the Collector's adverse recommendation without examining the petitioner's witnesses, as required by law, constitutes an illegal act and material irregularity. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to decide the application afresh in accordance with the law, laying down the principle that the mandatory procedure of examining witnesses under the relevant civil procedure rules cannot be bypassed.
- Whether an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis can be dismissed solely on the basis of a Collector's report without examining witnesses?
- Does the failure to follow the mandatory procedure for examining a petitioner's witnesses under Order XXXIII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constitute a material irregularity?
- Can a counsel's lack of instructions from respondents serve as a valid ground for revoking a power of attorney?
- Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXIII Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
Learned counsel for the respondents states that he has no instructions from the respondents probably for the reason that they do not want to keep him their counsel. This is no ground for allowing revocation of the Power of Attorney of the learned counsel nor a ground for holding that the respondents are not duly represented.
2. This is a revision petition against an order dated the 26th April, 1972, directing the petitioner to deposit court-fee after dismissing his application for permission to sue in forma pauperis.
3. The only ground dismissing that application is that the Collector, in his report dated the 24th June, 1971, had recommended that he should not be declared to be a pauper. This is no ground for dismissing the said application[ Rule 7 of Order XXXIII, C. P. C. Provides in sub-rule (1 for examination of the witnesses of the petitioner. The learned Court has not followed this procedure which is mandatory. It has acted illegally and with material irregularity by ignoring this provision.
4. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed, the order of the learned trial Court is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to decide the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis, in accordance with law.
' It appears that respondent No, 2 had not contested the matter on the date when the impugned order was passed. Respondent No, 1 only shall therefore pay the costs of the petitioner.
Cited by 6 cases
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD and 2 others 2004 YLR 392
- Messrs HABIB INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING 1999 CLC 1727
- Messrs HASHWANI HOTELS LIMITED vs Lt.-Col. (Retd.) MUHAMMAD SAEED 1999 CLC 1901
- FARMAN ALI vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF ALI And Another 1992 PLD Supreme Court 330
- Mst. SARDARAN BIBI and anothers vs ALLAHDINO 1990 PLD Karachi 227
- HUSSAIN NASSER Versus SHAMIM YAQUB 1989 CLC 2125