2018 YLRN 121

SHAHID HUSSAIN Versus SHAH ZAHIR KHAN

Citation2018 YLRN 121

CourtGilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Judge(s)Malik Haq Nawaz

ORDER

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.--- The petitioner/appellant has filed the instant revision petition bearing No. 81/201 against the order/judgment passed by learned District Judge Gilgit dated 05-06-2017, on the ground that the learned District Judge imposed cost of Rs. 8000/- on the petitioner/appellant which was within time and sufficient grounds were available for non-appearance if the petitioner/appellant on 20-02-2017. The order be set aside up to the extent of imposition of cost of Rs. 8000/-.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a civil 1st appeal filed by the petitioner/appellant was pending adjudication before District Judge Gilgit which was dismissed on 20-12-2017 for non-prosecution. The petitioner/appellant filed a petition under Order XLI, Rule 19, C.P.C. for re-admission of the appeal by setting aside the impugned order/judgment dated 20-02-2017, which was fixed for hearing on 05-06-2017. On 05-06-2017 as evident from the impugned order/ judgment the learned District Judge allowed restoration of appeal subject to payment of cost of Rs.8000/-.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant has assailed the order on mainly fold ground and contended that the above order has been passed in a slip shod manner without proper application of judicial mind and in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner/appellant, which requires to be set aside. Per learned counsel, there were many other solid and valid grounds for non-appearance when the order dated 20-02-2017 was passed, heavy cost is not only arbitrary but mis-application of law laid down by the judicial hierarchy in such like cases.

4. I have minutely examined the order and the arguments raised at bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner/ appellant and examined the record of the case with due care and caution. As evident from the order/judgment dated 05-06-2017 counsel for both the parties were present. The learned counsel for the respondent before the learned District Judge argued that the petitioner/appellant is avoiding appearance in the instant appeal. As obversed by District Judge on 20-02-2017 the petitioner/appellant was present outside the Court and did not bother to appear before the Court intentionally. The learned District Judge while considering above grounds though restored the appeal but imposed a cost of Rs.8000/-, which was justified in above circumstances.

5. I am of the view that the instant revision petition has been filed maliciously just to linger on the proceeding pending adjudication before the learned District Judge. The same is dismissed in limini.

ZC/211/GB Revision dismissed.