Citation Name: 2024 CLC 262 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case BISMILLAH vs NAIK MUHAMMAD O

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2024 CLC 262 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case BISMILLAH VS NAIK MUHAMMAD 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.

Citation Name: 2024 CLC 262 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case BISMILLAH vs NAIK MUHAMMAD O — 2024 CLC 262 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC