Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 195 of 1981, decided on 30th June, 1981.

‑‑.‑ S. 115‑Revision‑‑District Judge dismissing appeal of petitioner Judgment not showing at what time appeal of petitioner heard and how many times case called.‑Opportunity of being heard through counsel of petitioner, allowed, in circumstances.

M. Z. Khan Burki for Petitioner.

Muhammad Ayub Khan for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 30th June, 1981.

This civil revision arises from the judgment of the learned Addl : District judge, whereby he on 25‑4‑1981 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order, dated 5‑2‑1981 passed by the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Multan, who had refused to .issue a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, rule 1, C. P. C. in a declaratory suit filed by the petitioner against the respondents.

2. Learned counsel submits that the learned Additional District Judge had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner without hearing his counsel. This factual position has not been denied by the learned counsel for the respondents. However, be submits that it was the duty of the petitioner to produce his counsel and the learned Addl. District Judge had, therefore, rightly disposed of the appeal without hearing his counsel.

3. I have gone through the judgment of the learned Addl : District Judge and find that he had waited for the learned counsel since morning and had even sent for him from his chamber but he did not turn up and the learned Judge then heard the appellant himself. After having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and going though the impugned judgment. I find that it does not appear from the' judgment as to at what time the appeal was heard and how many time the case was called for and through whom the counsel for the appellant/petitioner was sent for and whether the learned counsel was, in fact, informed or not.

In these circumstances, in the larger interest of justice, I am of the opinion that it would be in the fitness of things if opportunity of being heard through his counsel is afforded to the petitioner in the appeal.

4. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment dated 25‑4‑1981 passed by the learned Addl : District Judge, Multan, is set aside and the appeal is remanded with the direction that learned Addl : District Judge would dispose of the same after hearing the parties. The revision petition stand accepted with no order as to costs.

M, Y, M. Revision petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.