Withdrawal of suit |Claim return request rejected The High Court termed the decision of the lower courts as invalid and illegal, saying that the petition of the plaintiffs did not mention formal defects and reasonable reasons and the lower court had allowed the case to be withdrawn without fulfilling the legal requirements, therefore the High Court set aside the judgments of both the subordinate courts. 2024 C L C 262

Claim return request rejected
The High Court termed the decision of the lower courts as invalid and illegal, saying that the petition of the plaintiffs did not mention formal defects and reasonable reasons and the lower court had allowed the case to be withdrawn without fulfilling the legal requirements, therefore the High Court set aside the judgments of both the subordinate courts.
2024 C L C 262

جی ہاں، کیس واپسی کی درخواست کا ایشو ہائیکورٹ تک پہنچا۔ ہائیکورٹ نے نچلی عدالت کے فیصلے کو غلط اور غیر قانونی قرار دیتے ہوئے، اس درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا۔ ہائیکورٹ نے کہا کہ مدعیوں کی درخواست میں ضروری قانونی وجوہات کا ذکر نہیں تھا اور نچلی عدالت نے قانونی تقاضوں کو پورا کیے بغیر کیس واپسی کی اجازت دے دی تھی، اس لیے ہائیکورٹ نے دونوں ماتحت عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کو منسوخ کر دیا۔

2024 C L C 262

[Balochistan]

Before Gul Hassan Tareen, J

BISMILLAH and 2 others----Petitioners

Versus

NAIK MUHAMMAD through Legal Heirs----Respondents

Civil Revision No.813 of 2021, decided on 17th March, 2023.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. XXIII, Rr. 1 & 2 & O. XIII, R. 2---Conditional withdrawal of suit, permission of---Formal defect, absence of---Order of the Court not containing legal reasoning---Effect---Trial Court allowed application moved by the plaintiffs for conditional withdrawal with conditional cost, which order was maintained by the Appellate Court---Contention of the petitioner/ defendant was that application made by the respondents / plaintiffs did not disclose 'formal defect' as they had stated that they were not in possession of some material documents in respect of suit-property and whenever they would be in possession of said documents, they would file a fresh suit---Validity---In an application for conditional withdrawal of suit, 'formal defect' or 'any other sufficient ground' must be mentioned as per O.XXIII, R.1(2)(a) & (b) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, whereas in the present case, respondents / plaintiffs could have collected the required documents to place the same on the record under O. XIII, R. 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, thus the reason (documents not being in possession) having been mentioned by the respondent / plaintiffs in their application did not amount to 'formal defect' or 'any other sufficient ground'---Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was brief and non-speaking---Not only an application for conditional withdrawal of suit must contain 'formal defect' but the order passed by the Court must contain legal reasoning also while granting such an application---Application made by the respondents was reason and was liable to be dismissed---Trial Court completely overlooked the contents of the application and provisions of O. XXIII, R. 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Perusal of impugned order revealed that the Trial Court had not applied at all its judicious mind to the facts as well as the law on the subject; and in a slipshot manner allowed the application of the respondents / plaintiffs---Error committed by he Trial Court was not merely a material illegality but suffered from jurisdictional error and material irregularity---Petitioner assailed the impugned order in appeal; however, the Appellate Court had repeated the same illegality and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law as such, the impugned orders and judgments attracted the provisions of S.115(1) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908---High Court set-aside impugned orders and judgments passed by both the Courts below---Consequently the application made by the respondent / plaintiffs for conditional withdrawal of the suit stood rejected---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

       Muhammad Yar (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Amin (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2013 SCMR 464 and Sharaf-ud-Din v. Abdul Wadood and 3 others, 2022 CLC 1282 ref.

       Atta Muhammad Tareen and Najeebullah Kakar for Petitioner.

       Jamal Khan Lashari for Respondents Nos.1A to 1-E and 3 and Abdul Tahir, State Counsel for Respondent No.4.

 

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.