ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and anothers vs Mst. RAEESA BEGUM and another

ORDER

' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.--- This petition has been filed by petitioners Government of Pakistan and Commanding Officer 71-Sachal Rangers, Karachi, against the impugned order, dated 15-4-1997 passed by a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court dismissing in limine the High Court Appeal filed by the petitioners. We have heard Mr. Naimur Rehman, learned Deputy Attorney-General for the petitioner and have referred to the relevant record.

2. A suit had been filed in 1994 in the Sindh High Court (Original Civil Jurisdiction) under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 by respondent/plaintiff Mst. Raeesa Begum widow of Munawar Ishaque for the recovery of rupees three million. Deceased husband of plaintiff Raeesa Begum was riding a scooter alongwith his two daughters on a main road in the Clifton area when the scooter was hit from behind by a truck belonging to petitioner No,2 and being driven by a driver, an employee of petitioner No,2 (respondent No, 2 herein). One of the daughters of the plaintiff died on the spot and her husband, who was seriously injured, was pronounced dead at the hospital. According to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the facts that the truck in question belonged to the petitioner No,2 and was being driven by respondent No,2 at the relevant time in the course of his employment with petitioner No,2 were not in dispute.

' No written statement was filed and the matter was fixed for final disposal in Court on 31-5-1995, when a counsel for the Government appeared and sought adjournment on the ground that he had not received back the written statement which he had sent to the petitioners for signatures. The hearing was adjourned subject to payment of rupees two thousand as costs. Even thereafter the petitioners did not file any written statement nor the said costs were paid. The matter then came up for final disposal again on 15-8-1995 and again a request was made for adjournment, which was declined by the learned Single Judge. Two affidavits had been filed on behalf of the plaintiff in support of her case. One was the affidavit of plaintiff herself and the other was of any eye-witness, namely, Zaheeruddin. The learned Single Judge gave an opportunity to the Government Counsel to cross-examine the witnesses but he declined on the ground that he was not prepared. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge proceeded with the matter and, after discussing the evidence brought on record in the form of the said two affidavits and the pleadings, decreed the suit in the sum of Rs,11,25,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of the suit till payment. Costs of the suit were also granted to the plaintiff.

' Petitioner filed a High Court Appeal which has been dismissed in limine by the impugned order, dated 15-4-1997 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court.

3. We have heard Mr. Naimur Rehman, learned D.A.G. And also A.S.C. On behalf of the petitioners. He could not point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court calling for interference. In the impugned order, the relevant facts have been noted and it has been pointed out that the very purpose of the Fatal Accidents Act is to provide compensation to the family for loss caused by the death of a person on account of an actionable wrong. It is further observed that if the petitioners failed to file their Written Statement within the time prescribed and also within the further time granted by the Court, petitioners could not make a grievance against the order of the learned Single Judge decreeing the suit. It has been noted in the impugned order that the vehicle was owned by petitioner No,2 and was being driven by respondent No,2 in the course of his employment with petitioner No,2 and that time had been extended by the learned Single Judge for filing written statement on payment of costs but despite this, written statement was not filed nor costs were deposited but adjournments were again sought which were declined. It has also been noted in the impugned order that the counsel appearing for the petitioners had declined to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff who were present in Court.

4. As observed, we are of the view that this is not a case calling for interference. In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed and leave is refused.