Pakistan Case LawGHULAM RASOOL Versus (Mst.) ZAINAB BIBI
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order passed by a Judge in Chambers, which had allowed the respondent's application under Order XLI, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, thereby restoring an appeal to be heard on its merits. The petitioner contended that the respondent had been served with a notice of appeal on March 4, 1987, and that the subsequent proceedings were flawed because no hearing took place on that specific date, leading to an adjournment. The Supreme Court examined the impugned order, noting that the lower court had carefully considered the relevant legal authorities regarding the service of notice and the procedural requirements for restoring an appeal. Finding that the lower court had exercised its discretion with care and caution, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no merit in the petitioner's arguments. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision to restore the appeal for a hearing on the merits.
- Can an appellate court restore an appeal under Order XLI, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after it has been dismissed for default?
- Is the service of notice on a specific date a prerequisite for the validity of subsequent adjournment orders in an appeal?
ORDER
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judge in Chambers whereby respondent's application under Order XLI, rule 19, C.P.C. Was allowed and the appeal was ordered to be heard on merits.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent had been served with notice of appeal on 4-3-1987. However, on that date no hearing was held and the case was adjourned. The impugned order has considered this aspect of the case with great care and caution by referring to several authorities. We do not find any force in the petition, which is dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry1,248 judgments
- Saleem Akhtar1,928 judgments