MUHAMMAD ARSHAD & CO. through Muhammad Arshad vs ZILA COUNCIL, PAKPATTAN SHARIF, through District Nazim Pakpattan Sharif and otherss
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition due to non-compliance with a conditional order. The petitioner had previously obtained the restoration of a dismissed writ petition, subject to the payment of costs amounting to Rs. 5,000. However, when the matter came up for hearing, the petitioner failed to pay the costs or request an extension of time. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition for failure to comply with the condition of payment of costs. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted correctly in dismissing the petition, as the petitioner had neither paid the costs by the date of the hearing nor sought additional time to do so. The Court affirmed that a party's failure to comply with a conditional order for restoration of a case justifies the dismissal of the proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and refused leave to appeal.
- Is a High Court justified in dismissing a writ petition if the petitioner fails to comply with a conditional order for payment of costs?
- Does the failure to pay costs imposed as a condition for the restoration of a writ petition warrant the dismissal of the petition?
ORDER
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment dated 21-7- 2005, passed by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No,2330 of 2001.
2. The petitioner company filed Writ Petition No,2330 of 2001, which was dismissed for non- prosecution, by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, by judgment and decree, dated 1-6-2004. The petitioners moved C.M. Nos.2336 and 2337 of 2004 for restoration of the writ petition. The same were allowed by the High Court, by order, dated 26-5-2005. The order, dated 1-6-2004 of dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition was recalled and the writ petition was restored subject to payment of costs of Rs,5,000. The writ petition came up for hearing on 21-7-2005. On which date the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition No,2330 of 2001 on account of non-compliance of its order, dated 26-5-2005 as the costs of Rs,5, 000 had not been paid.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner company vehemently argued that no time had been fixed for payment of costs by the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21-7-2005 was not sustainable at law.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. We find that even on the date of hearing i,e, 21-7-2005, the costs were not paid nor any request for more time was made by or on behalf of the petitioners for payment of the same. In the circumstances, the High Court was quite justified in dismissing the writ petition of the petitioners. The impugned judgment does not warrant any interference by this Court.
5. For the foregoing reason, we do not find any substance in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.
Cited by 4 cases
- Muhammad Naveed Akhtar vs Mst. Ghazala Batool, etc 2022 LHC 4837, 2022 PLJ Lahore 744
- Rai MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus EJAZ AHMED 2021 PLD 761
- Ejaz Ahmad through Attorney vs Rai Muhammad Riaz (Deceased) through Legal Heirs and others 2020 CLC 1652
- Habib-ur-Rahman and ten others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance at Islamabad and others 2023 PHC 616