Command of Sovereign

19/12/2025

2004CLC1016

(b) Words and phrases---
----" "---- and .

PART 1 : https://www.facebook.com/share/r/16pWBKigNW/

14/12/2025

“A COELO USQUE AND CENTRUM”

MEANING:

“from the heavens to the centre of the earth”

14/12/2025

14/12/2025

Case not fixed for , Non- , Article 181 , Case .

14/12/2025

The upheld the acquittal of the respondents, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, unreliable identification of the accused, and weak corroborative evidence. The Court noted serious inconsistencies in the testimony of injured eye-witnesses, lack of forensic and substantiation, and absence of recoveries linking the respondents to the crime. Given the double presumption of innocence attached to an acquittal and the limited scope of interference under section 417, Cr.P.C., the appeal was found to be without merit. Consequently, the against acquittal was dismissed.

13/12/2025

2004 C L C 1016
[Peshawar]
Before Talaat Qayum Qureshi, J
SHER MUHAMMAD and another---Petitioners
Versus
AHMAD KHAN and another---Respondents
Civil Revision No.779 of 2002, decided on 19th June, 2003.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. IX, Rr. 8, 9---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.8, 42 & 54-- Expression "Hearing"---Meanings---Suit for possession, declaration and perpetual injunction---Transfer of suit from one Court to another-- Dismissal of suit for non-appearance of plaintiff---Restoration of suit-- Suit filed in the Court of E.A.C. with the power of Deputy Commissioner, was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi due to amendment in law in that respect---Plaintiff who was not served with notice of such transfer, could not appear in transferee Court and due to his absence his suit was also dismissed for non-prosecution and his application for restoration of suit was also dismissed by Trial Court- -Appellate Court below, however, allowed application for restoration of suit and case was remanded to Trial Court for deciding suit on merits-- Defendants had filed revision against judgment of Appellate Court-- Validity---Plaintiff having not been served after case was transferred to Civil Judge, question of appearance of plaintiff before transferee Civil Court would not arise---Even if plaintiff had been served and he was absent on date for which he was summoned, question would arise as to whether said date would be called date of "hearing" ---Word `hearing' would mean taking of evidence or hearing of arguments or the consideration of question relating to suit which would enable the Court to finally come to an adjudication upon it and not the consideration of interlocutory matter---When case was received on transfer from another Court and fixed for determining future conduct of the suit, notice was issued for `appearance' and not for `hearing'---After holding the service of notice to be proper, the Court was required to fix case for hearing and suit could not be dismissed for non-appearance of plaintiff on date when same was fixed for appearance only---Trial Court was not justified to dismiss suit and Appellate Court had rightly set aside judgment of Trial Court---In absence of any jurisdictional error/defect, warranting interference in judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court, revision petition filed against judgment and decree of Appellate Court below, was dismissed.
(b) Words and phrases---
----"Hearing"----Meaning and scope.
Qazi Zakiuddin for. Petitioners.
Jan Muhammad Khan for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 17th June, 2003.
JUDGMENT
Umar Said predecessor of the respondents filed suit against Ajdar predecessor of the petitioners, in the Court of learned E.A.C. Sheringal with powers of Deputy Commissioner seeking declaration, perpetual injunction and possession of the property more particularly described in the heading of the plaint. The said suit was resisted by the predecessor of the petitioners by filing written statement. The said suit with the amendment in law was transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi, Dir. The case file was received by the learned trial court on 22-2-1995. Due to absence of the plaintiff (Umar Said) the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order, dated 25-6-1995. Petitioner filed application for restoration of the suit on 4-7-1998. The learned trial Court after recording evidence of the parties dismissed the application vide judgment/order dated 20-4-2000. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment/order, the respondents filed appeals Nos.45/14 in the Court of learned District Judge/Zila Qazi, Dir Bala. The said appeal was allowed, the judgment/order passed by the trial Court was set aside, the application for restoration of suit was allowed on payment of Rs.2,000 as costs and the case was remanded back to the learned trial Court for deciding the suit on merits vide judgment and decree, dated 15-10-2002. Being not contented with the judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court, the petitioners have filed the revision petition in hand.
2. Qazi Zakiuddin, the learned counsel representing the petitioners, argued that the suit filed by Umar Said was dismissed for non prosecution on 25-6-1995. The application for restoration of the same was filed after more than three years on 4-7-1997 which was hopelessly barred by time. Under Article 163 of the Limitation Act, the application should have been filed within thirty days from the date of dismissal of the suit but the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the same.
3. It was also argued that the respondents had the knowledge of dismissal of the suit but they did not move in time to file application for restoration of the suit.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Jan Muhammad Khan, the learned counsel representing the respondents, argued that the suit with the amendment in law was transferred from the Court of E.A.C. to the learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi but no notice of the said transfer order was given to the predecessor of the respondents, therefore, his absence on 25-6-1995 was not intentional. The learned Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the same and that has properly exercised the discretion in favour of the respondents which needs no interference.
5. It was also argued that the predecessor of the respondents was constantly ill and eventually died in the year 1997. The respondents had no knowledge of the dismissal of suit filed by Umar Said their predecessor. Having come to know about the dismissal of suit, they filed application for restoration of suit which was within time from the date of knowledge.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The perusal of the case file shows that the learned E.A.C. Sheringal vide order, dated 8-1-995 sent the case file to the Court of learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi, Dir which was received by the said Court on 22-2-1995. Notice to the defendant was issued form the' said Court for 22-3-1995 but none appeared. The case file was again sent to the learned District Judge/Zilla Qazi vide order, dated 22-3-1995. The same was then received back by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 3-4-1995. The learned trial Court on 27-4-1995 again issued summons to the parties for 24-5-1995 on which date the plaintiff was not present, however, the defendant put appearance through his attorney. Notice was again issued in the name of plaintiff for 4-6-1995 on which date the learned Presiding Officer went to Samar Bagh to record his statement hence the date was changed due to note of Reader in which as a routine matter it was mentioned that the parties were present and case was posted for 14-6-1995 on which date the plaintiff was absent. Similar was the position on 25-6-1995 when the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.
8. The perusal of the order-sheets show that the predecessor of the respondents was not served after the case was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi, therefore, the question of his appearance before the Court did not arise. Even if the deceased plaintiff had been served and was absent on the date for which he was summoned, the question arises as to whether the said date would be called "hearing". The answer to this question is in negative. The word "hearing" means the taking of evidence or hearing of arguments or the consideration of question relating to the suit which would enable the Court to finally come to an adjudication upon it and not the consideration of interlocutory matters.
When the case was received on transfer from another Court and fixed for determining the future conduct of the suit, notice was issued for "appearance" and not for "hearing". After holding the service of notice to be proper, the Court was required to fix the case of hearing and the suit could not be dismissed for non-appearance of the plaintiff on the date when the same was fixed for appearance only. The learned trial Court without appreciating that the deceased plaintiff (Umar Said) had not been served after the suit was transferred from the Court of learned district Judge/Zilla Qazi and received by the trial Court. A dismissed the same vide order, dated 25-6-1995. The said order on the face of it was illegal. The learned Appellate Court has appreciated the same properly.
9. I have not been able to find out any illegality or material irregularity or any jurisdictional error/defect warranting interference in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court. Resultantly, the revision petition in hand is dismissed with no order as to costs.
H.B.T./80/P Petition dismissed.

( 2022 CLD 1013)
(Order dismissed due to non prosecution is Void Order, 151 application for Restoration, fall under Article 181 Limitation Act,1908)
__________________________________________________________
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1DeE5oD39U/
------------------------------------------------------------

11/12/2025

The Lahore High Court (Multan Bench) held in 2022 CLD 1013 that a suit cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution if the date was not fixed for hearing, and such dismissal is legally void. The Court ruled that restoration in such cases falls under Section 151 CPC, with a three-year limitation under Article 181. Emphasizing that cases should be decided on merits, the Court restored the Bank’s recovery suit as no negligence or misconduct was found. The impugned order of the Banking Court was set aside accordingly.

11/12/2025

2022 C L D 1013
[Lahore (Multan Bench)]
Before Sohail Nasir and Ahmad Nadeem Arshad, JJ
HABIB BANK LIMITED through Manager---Appellant
Versus
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN through Legal Heirs and another---Respondents
F.A.O. No. 44 of 2021, heard on 23rd November, 2021.
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)---
----Ss. 9, 10 & 22---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181---Suit for recovery of finance---Suit dismissed for absence of plaintiff---Restoration---Date not fixed for hearing---Suit filed by appellant/Bank was dismissed due to its absence on the date it was fixed for attendance of respondents/defendants---Validity---Suit could not be dismissed, if date was not for hearing---Such dismissal had no legal effect and there was no limitation to run against such order, which was void, a nullity and not permissible---Such order of dismissal could be set aside by invoking provision of S. 151 C.P.C.---No limitation provided elsewhere in Limitation Act, 1908 or under S. 151, C.P.C., therefore, in the light of Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908, period of three years was available for such type of applications---Appellant/Bank moved application for restoration of the suit and condonation of delay which was supported by affidavit and there was no reason for Banking Court to disbelieve that affidavit---Law favours adjudication on merits and dismissal for non-prosecution should be an exception and not a rule---Court was not to be very strict in such regard---Litigant was not to be deprived of hearing unless there has been something equivalent to misconduct or gross negligence on his part---High Court set aside the order passed by Banking Court as there was no such finding against appellant/ Bank and suit was restored---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.
Mian Khurram Hashmi for Appellant.
Mian Tahir Iqbal for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 23rd November, 2021.
JUDGMENT
AHMED NADEEM ARSHAD, J.---This First Appeal against Order has been filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances), Ordinance XLVI, 2001 (Ordinance, 2001) challenging the vires of order dated 07.05.2021 whereby application for restoration of suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff bank against the respondent for recovery of Rs.6,39,285.78 was dismissed by the learned Banking Court No.III, Multan.
2. Facts in brevity are that appellant bank instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.6,39,285.78 against the respondent. On 19.08.2020 neither learned counsel for plaintiff bank nor its representative entered appearance so it was adjourned for order on 20.08.2020. On the said date again nobody appeared and the learned Banking Court dismissed the suit for non-prosecution. After lapse of approximately six months application for restoration of suit was filed on behalf of plaintiff bank on 26.02.2021. Along with the application, petition for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was also moved by the plaintiff bank. Both these applications were duly supported by an Affidavit of authorized representative of the bank. The learned Banking Court after hearing preliminary arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff bank dismissed these applications vide order dated 07.05.2021. Feeling aggrieved by that order appellant/plaintiff bank has filed the instant appeal.
3. In support of this appeal learned counsel for the appellant bank argued that impugned order is against law and facts on the subject; that previous counsel did not inform the bank about dismissal of suit on 20.08.2020, however, the factum of dismissal of suit for non-prosection came to know on 24.02.2020 when appellant bank engaged a new counsel; that the suit had been dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.08.2020 and prior to it on 19.08.2020 suit was fixed for further proceedings meaning thereby that was not a date of hearing; that learned Banking Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay without discussing its contents; that the impugned order suffers from patent infirmities, irregularities and illegalities and that cases should be decided on merits rather on technicalities.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. It has vehemently been argued that learned counsel for the appellant bank could not point any sufficient cause for setting aside the impugned order and that learned Banking Court has passed the order on sound reasoning which is not open to any exception.
5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Learned Banking Court dismissed the application for restoration of the suit, keeping in view Article 163 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which provides a period of 30-days from the date of dismissal of the suit. The appellant bank instituted the suit on 13.02.2018, after registering the case, the learned Banking Court summoned the respondent/defendant as per section 9(5) of the Ordinance, 2001 and the respondent/defendant moved petition for leave to appear and defend the suit (PLA) in the shape of written statement on 07.04.2018. The appellant/plaintiff bank filed replication on 19.10.2018. On 06.05.2019, learned counsel for defendant informed the learned Banking Court that his client has been passed away and his legal heirs have not contacted him. The learned Banking Court directed the appellant that after getting verification of death of Muhammad Hussain defendant/respondent, amended plaint be filed by impleading his legal heirs. Death Certificate was filed on 08.10.2019. Case was being adjourned for filing of amended plaint after impleading legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Hussain, defendant/respondent when it was dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.08.2020. There is no specific provision existed in the Ordinance, 2001 with regard to dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution. So keeping in view section 7(2) of the Ordinance, 2001 which provides that where procedure has not been provided then the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 be followed, the suit may be dismissed for non-prosecution either under Order IX, Rule 8 or Order XVII, Rule 2 of C.P.C. which describe the situation when the suit may be dismissed for non-prosecution. Order IX, Rule 8, C.P.C. applies only to dismissal in default at the first hearing and Order XVII, Rule 2, C.P.C. deals with dismissal at the adjourned hearings. The suit can be restored either under Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. if the dismissal is under rule 8, C.P.C. and under section 151, C.P.C. if the suit dismissed under Order XVII, Rule 2, C.P.C. A suit can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the date was fixed for hearing. The word hearing has not been defined and it is used in different rules with a view to state the different purposes for which the hearing is fixed. It implies a date on which some act for furtherance of the suit or proceedings is to be taken. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while interpreting 'date of hearing' hold that it must be a date on which investigation of a controversy or hearing of arguments or taking of evidence or tendering of document or stricking of issues, etc., is fixed. To ascertain whether a date is fixed for "hearing" or not, no inquiry is needed, this being point of law can be raised at any stage and can be determined from the order sheet.
7. A suit cannot be dismissed, if the date was not for hearing and such dismissal would be no legal effect and no limitation will run against it and such order is void, a nullity and not permissible. Such order of dismissal can be set aside by invoking provision of section 151, C.P.C. As there is no limitation provided elsewhere in the Limitation Act, 1908 or under section 151, C.P.C., therefore, in the light of Article 181 of the Act ibid period of three years is available for such type of applications.
8. The appellant moved applications for restoration of the suit and for condonation of delay, which were duly supported by Affidavits. There was no reason for the learned Banking Court to disbelieve that Affidavits. None of the legal heir of respondent Muhammad Hussain was present when the suit was called for and dismissed for non-prosecution, so they cannot claim any vested right accrued to them. There was no need to be heard the defendants/respondents at the time of restoration of suit. No prejudice has been caused to the defendants/respondents by restoration of the suit, as they have a right to contest the suit during trial.
9. The appellant bank did not mention any provision of law in its application for restoration of suit. The learned Banking Court by presuming on self assumption declared to have been filed under Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. and treating it under Article 163 of the Limitation Act, 1908, dismissed being barred by limitation. As discussed supra, the crucial date was not date for hearing and preceding date was fixed for submission of amended plaint, therefore, the suit could not be dismissed for non-prosecution. The dismissal of suit in that eventuality can be got set aside by invoking inherent powers under section 151, C.P.C. Accordingly period of limitation would be regulated by residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, providing three years limitation period for setting aside the order of dismissal of suit for non-prosecution.
10. Law favours adjudication on merits and dismissal for non-prosecution should be an exception and not a rule. The Courts should not be very strict in this regard. A litigant should not be deprived of hearing, unless there has been something equivalent to misconduct or gross negligence on his part. There is no finding of negligence on the part of appellant/plaintiff bank, therefore, the suit was liable to be restored.
11. For the reasons given above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order being not sustainable is set aside. Consequently, the application for restoration of suit regarding recalling of order for non-prosecution is accepted. The suit of plaintiff bank is restored to its original number and shall be deemed to be pending for decision. The learned Banking-Court shall decide the suit in accordance with law from the stage it was dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
MH/H-5/L Appeal allowed.

10/12/2025

2021 Y L R 2030
The High Court reiterated the settled principle that, in all matters relating to the custody of and visitation with minor children, the paramount consideration is the welfare and best interest of the child. The Court held that the Guardian Court is fully empowered to frame a fresh visitation schedule or to modify an existing one, even in the presence of earlier final orders. Owing to the deliberate non-appearance of the father, the impugned order was declared void, and the Guardian Court was directed to immediately devise a new visitation schedule to safeguard and ensure the mother’s visitation rights.

09/12/2025

(( IRREGULAR ORDER ))
The issuing body generally had the authority (jurisdiction) to make the order, but an error or an omission occurred in the process or procedure. It is often considered voidable, meaning it remains valid and binding unless and until a higher court or review process sets it aside.

08/12/2025

(( VOID ORDER ))
A void order typically arises from a fundamental lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, such as lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties, or the power to render the particular judgment involved. Proceedings founded on a void order are also void.

08/12/2025

(ILLEGAL ORDER)

"The order itself directs an action that is criminal, forbidden by statute, or violates constitutional rights."