Pakistan Case Law
2007 SCMR 1434

AMMANULLAH KHAN LEGHARI vs ARID SHAIKH AHMED

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2007 SCMR 1434
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Appeal No,2585 of 2001
Date2007-02-03
Judge(s)Rana Bhagwandas, Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Hamid Ali Mirza
Authored byRana Bhagwandas
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Sindh High Court, which held that following amendments conferring appellate powers on the District Court under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain an application for the restoration or re-admission of an appeal previously dismissed by it for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether the High Court remained competent to re-admit such an appeal upon sufficient cause being shown. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view was hyper-technical and erroneous, ruling that even if the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does not strictly apply, its broad and equitable principles may be invoked to ensure complete and substantial justice. The Court established the principle that a court which passed an order of dismissal retains the jurisdiction to entertain a prayer for its recall and re-admission to secure the ends of justice, rather than abdicating jurisdiction on technical grounds.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the High Court is competent to re-admit an appeal dismissed by it for non-prosecution after the amendment conferring appellate powers on the District Court under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can broad and equitable principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 be invoked in proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for ensuring substantial justice?
  • Does a High Court abdicate its jurisdiction by refusing to entertain an application for the recall and re-admission of its own dismissal order on technical grounds?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
restoration of appealdismissal for non-prosecutionrented premisesappellate jurisdictionequitable principlesCode of Civil Procedure

' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- This appeal with leave of the Court is directed against the Sindh High Court judgment, dated 24-5-2001.

2. Short question for consideration in this appeal is whether after the dismissal of F.R.A. Under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,1979 (hereinafter referred to the Ordinance, 1979), High Court was competent to re-admit the appeal at the instance of the appellant upon showing sufficient cause.

The view taken in the impugned judgment appears to be that after the amendment introduced in the Ordinance, 1979 conferring the powers of appeal on the District Court, High Court would have no jurisdiction to deal with any application for restoration or re-admission of an appeal dismissed by it for non-prosecution.

3. After hearing Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent and examination of the record as well as the impugned judgment, we do not feel persuaded to agree with the view taken by the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court which on the face of the record appears to be hyper-technical and against the broad principles of law. Assuming for the sake of argument, that the provisions of C.P.C. 1908 would not be strictly attracted in appeals under the Ordinance, 1979, we are of the view that broad and equitable principles of C.P.C. Can always be invoked for ensuring complete and substantial justice to the parties. In the present case since the order of dismissal was passed by the High Court, we are firmly of the opinion that it would be appropriate for the High Court to entertain a prayer for recall and re-admission. High Court should not in such cases suffer from abdication of jurisdiction and rather exercise its jurisdiction for securing complete ends of justice and suppressing the mischief rather than technically knocking out a person.

4. In this view of the matter, we would allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. Restoration application shall be deemed to be pending before the High Court and shall be disposed of on its own merits strictly in accordance with the law with utmost expedition in view of the anxiety expressed by respondent who has been litigating for the enforcement of his right for the last more than sixteen years. No order as to costs.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.