Supreme Court of Pakistani ABDUL MAJEED vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and 2 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition and imposed special costs of Rs. 10,000 upon the petitioner for initiating uncalled-for litigation against the respondents. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner's failure to comply with the High Court's order regarding the payment of costs, despite repeated opportunities, warranted the dismissal of the petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's persistent failure to comply with the direction to pay costs, coupled with requests for further time to arrange funds, indicated an attempt to prolong frivolous litigation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that a party's failure to comply with a court's order regarding the payment of costs, especially when such litigation is deemed uncalled for, justifies the dismissal of their petition for leave to appeal to prevent the abuse of the judicial process.
- Does the failure to comply with a High Court order for the payment of special costs justify the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal?
- Can a petitioner seek to prolong litigation by failing to comply with costs orders while requesting additional time to arrange funds?
ORDER
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 6-12-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Writ Petition No,10785 of 2000 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. ' The Impugned order was passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, on 6.12-2001 burdening the petitioner with special costs of Rs.10,000 to be paid to respondents Nos,2 and 3 for embroiling them in uncalled for litigation in spite of the fact that no restraint order was passed. The petitioner has not complied with the direction of the learned Single Judge in spite of the fact that no restraint order is in the field.
3. ' On 25-4-2002 when this petition came up for hearing we asked the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner regarding payment of the costs to respondents Nos.2 and 3 as awarded by the learned Single Judge. The case was, accordingly, adjourned for today.
4. The direction for payment of costs, even till today, has not been complied with and the learned counsel again wants time as according to him, the petitioner has gone for arranging money.
5. ' We are not persuaded to grant this request made by the learned counsel so as to prolong this uncalled for litigation. The instant petition is, accordingly, dismissed.