HABIB BANK LIMITED vs HAIDER LADHU JAFFER and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Habib Bank Limited against the restoration of a suit that had been dismissed for default. The Supreme Court of Pakistan identified several significant legal questions requiring extensive debate, specifically regarding the maintainability of a petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against a decree following a dismissal for default. The Court also sought to examine the diligence of the respondents in pursuing their remedy, the issue of limitation regarding the restoration application, the presumption of service of court processes, and the consequences of failing to file a form of address under Order VI, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Finding these points to be of serious legal import, the Court granted leave to appeal. Furthermore, to prevent the appeal from becoming infructuous, the Supreme Court ordered the suspension of the trial court proceedings pending the final adjudication of the appeal, rejecting the request to allow the trial to continue up to the point of final judgment.
- Is a petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable against a decree passed after the dismissal of a suit for default?
- Does the failure to file a form of address under Order VI, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 carry adverse legal consequences?
- Can trial court proceedings be suspended pending the outcome of an appeal to prevent the appeal from becoming infructuous?
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order VI Rule 19, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
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 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.