ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Constt:Petition No.D-519 of 2020.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

Before:

Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah,

 Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi,

01. For orders on office objection “A”.

02. For orders on maintainability of main case.

23.11.2021

                        Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Liaquat Ali Shar, A.A.G Sindh.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

                        Facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant constitutional petition are that a suit for Declaration, Possession and Recovery of Compensation was filed by the petitioner, it was dismissed for non prosecution and non-payment of process fee, by learned trial Court vide order dated 09.01.2016, its restoration was denied by learned trial Court vide order dated 18.03.2019; the appeal preferred against such order was also dismissed by learned  Appellate Court by converting the same into revision application, it is in these circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the instant constitutional petition before this Court.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the official respondents were actually served with notice/summon of learned trial Court; even otherwise, the petitioner could not be denied chance of fair trial under any circumstance which is guaranteed by law. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned orders with direction to learned trial Court to proceed with suit of the petitioner in accordance with law.

                        None has appeared on behalf of the private respondent despite service of notice. However, learned A.A.G did not support the impugned orders by contending that the right of fair trial could not be denied to anyone.

                        We have considered the above arguments and perused record.

                        The suit of the petitioner actually was dismissed for non prosecution/non-payment of process fee for service of notice/summon upon the official respondents; they as per learned counsel for the petitioner were actually served with the notice/summon of learned trial Court. If for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the official respondents were not served with the notice/summon of the Court for want of payment of process fee; then the suit ought to have been dismissed in their respect alone by learned trial Court not as a whole; it was to have been proceeded against the private respondent, who on service was being represented before learned trial Court through a counsel. Be that as it may, the valuable rights of the petitioner are involved in the instant matter, therefore, he could hardly be non-suited, on the basis of technicalities; Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, guarantees rights of fair trial, which could not be denied to the petitioner under any circumstance.

                        In view of above, the impugned orders of learned Trial and Appellate Courts are set aside with direction to learned trial Court to proceed with suit of the petitioner in accordance with law.    

                        The instant constitutional petition is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

J U D G E

      J U D G E