Citation Name: 2025 PLD 351 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ALIM SHAR vs SHAHNAWAZ 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: 2025 PLD 351 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ALIM SHAR VS SHAHNAWAZ O.XXIII, R.1---Withdrawal of suit with permission to file a fresh one---Pre-requisites---Formal defects, lack of---Order of Trial Court passed summarily and without legal reasoning---Effect---Petitioner filed suit seeking declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction, possession, and cancellation of documents against the respondents, wherein, during its pendency, he moved an application for conditional withdrawal of the suit on the ground of bona fide mistakes and formal defects in the plaint, expressing his intention to file a fresh suit---Trial Court, without issuing notice to the respondents or recording any reasons, allowed the application and granted permission for filing a fresh suit on the same day---Aggrieved by this order, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed civil revision petition before the District Court, which was allowed---Revisional court set aside the Trial Court's order for being arbitrary and passed without judicial application of mind or affording the respondents an opportunity of hearing, in violation of O. XXIII, R. 1(2)(b), C.P.C.---Meanwhile, the petitioner had already filed a fresh suit in pursuance of the earlier permission granted by the Trial Court---Petitioner, therefore, filed the present Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, seeking setting aside of the revisional court's order in order to continue with his fresh suit---Legal point for determination by the High Court was as to "Whether the Trial Court's order permitting withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh one, without recording reasons or affording notice and hearing to the respondents, was legally sustainable under O. XXIII, R. 1(2)(b) of C.P.C.?---Held: Careful examination of the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff reflected that withdrawal of the suit was sought conditionally to bring a new suit on the pretext that there were certain formal defects in the plaint---Such formal defects were not disclosed in the application but the Trial Court granted application as prayed, without hearing the other side, or getting satisfied that the application fulfilled the conditions set forth in O. XXIII, R. 1(2), C.P.C., which from face if it offended the fundamental rights of the respondents as to fair trial under Art. 10-A of the Constitution---Trial Court did not even require the petitioner/plaintiff to reveal such formal defects in the plaint so as to examine that whether such defects were curable and could be rectified by invoking O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C. through amendments in the plaint---Petitioner/plaintiff sought cancellation of registered documents which was a time related cause and limited the filing of suit within specified time---But the Trial Court did not apply its judicial mind and allowed the application in a very casual manner, without assigning reasons or examining the plaint to ascertain the nature of defects necessitating filing of fresh suit, thus the order passed by Trial Court lacked application of judicious mind, thus was untenable under the law---Moreover, perusal of plaint of the fresh suit revealed that it was not a case of filing a fresh suit, but it was a case for seeking amendment in the pleadings under O. VI, R. 17 of C.P.C. which could be sought at any stage of the proceedings---The order of revisional court resulted in revival of the original suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff at the stage where it was dismissed as withdrawn---Trial Court exercised its discretion without applying judicial mind and allowed the application in an arbitrary manner thus order of Trial Court was not within the premise of law and was rightly set aside by the revisional court, thus no case was made out for interference in order passed by the revisional court---Certain directions were made by the High Court while disposing of the present Constitutional petition---Petition was disposed of, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 PLD 351 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ALIM SHAR vs SHAHNAWAZ O — 2025 PLD 351 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD