Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 263 of 1968, decided on 11th November 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 30th April 1968, in C. R. 268 of 1968).
S. 92 & O. IX, r. 9‑Suit under S. 92 by several persons ‑Suit after its institution with permission of Advocate‑General, could be conducted at all stages by one of the plaintiff's‑Suit dismissed for default of appearance could be restored at instance of any one of plaints.
Muhammad Asaf, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Wajid Hussain, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 11th November 1968.
The respondents had brought a suit against the petitioner under section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code relating to a Trust property. The case was dismissed owing to the absence of the plaintiff‑respondents on 22‑7‑1967 but restored on the application of Mr. Islam‑ul‑Haq, counsel for the respondent Hakim Noor‑ud‑Din, filed on the 27th of July 1967 and supported by an affidavit to the effect that he (the counsel) had wrongly understood and noted the date of the hearing in the case as 27‑7‑1967 instead of 22‑7‑1967.
The petitioner challenged the restoration order in revision before the High Court which has been dismissed. The ground for the revision urged in the High Court and which has been repeated before us is that the suit could not have been restored as far as the plaintiffs other than Hakim Noor‑ud‑Din are concerned, as Mr. Islam‑ul‑Haq, was not their counsel and they were not present either on the 22nd of July 1967 or the 27th of July 1967.
This contention has been rightly rejected by the High Court. The suit instituted under section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code had been brought in a representative capacity with the; permission of the Advocate‑General and after its institution it could be con ducted at all stages by any one of the plaintiffs. The restoration order although made at the instance of one of the plaintiffs, result ed in the revival of the whole suit to the benefit of all the plaintiffs.
This petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer