ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Const. Petition No.D-973 of 2022
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
1.
For
orders on office objection at flag `A`
2.
For
orders on CMA No.3523/2022
3.
For
hearing of main case
26-10-2023
Mr. Saeed Ahmed Bhatt, Advocate for
the Petitioners
Mr. Ahmed Ali Shahani, Assistant
Advocate General
.-.-.-.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Muhammad
Iqbal Kalhoro,J:- Petitioners filed
a suit for Declaration, Cancellation of documents and Permanent Injunction
before the Court of Senior Civil Judge-III, Khairpur in the year 2017. The
issues were framed and the case was posted for recording evidence of the plaintiffs
but on one excuse or the other the evidence could not be recorded. Finally on
02.09.2019, plaintiffs filed a statement seeking withdrawal of the suit subject
to a condition of filing of some fresh suit on account of technical defects in
the pending suit. Learned Senior Civil Judge-III, Khairpur,
however taking into account the year of filing of suit: 2017, framing of issues on
31.05.2018, and failure of plaintiffs to lead evidence, declined permission to
the plaintiffs to file fresh suit but allowed the withdrawal and disposed of
the suit.
Being
aggrieved by such order, the petitioners filed a Civil Revision Application No.43/2019
before the Additional District Judge-III, Khairpur, which has been dismissed by
the impugned order dated 10.06.2022, observing that the impugned order dated
02.09.2019 is based on well reasons and there was no illegality or irregularity
in it.
We
have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AAG. The private
respondents despite notice have chosen to remain absent.
Learned
AAG has conceded that the petitioners had sought conditional withdrawal of the
suit subject to filing a fresh suit. The court was required to either allow the
petitioners to withdraw the suit and accept the condition. Or if the court was
not satisfied with the condition, it was required to dismiss the application
and proceed with the matter. The trial Court had no jurisdiction to allow the
withdrawal of suit but at the same time decline permission to the petitioners
to file a fresh suit. The way learned Senior Civil Judge exercised jurisdiction
is paradoxical / self-conflicting. The petitioners had not sought withdrawal of
the suit but only upon acceptance of the condition. If the court was not
satisfied with the condition, it had no jurisdiction to dispose of the suit as
withdrawn.
In
addition to above, it may be stated, reasons regarding
failure of the petitioners to lead evidence would not provide any jurisdiction
to the court to dispose of the suit by allowing its withdrawal. Order 17
In
view of such discussion, we are not satisfied with the reasoning in support of findings
and the way statement of the petitioners was dealt with and decided by both the
Courts. Hence we set-aside both the orders dated 02.09.2019 and 10.06.2022 and
remand the case to the Senior Civil Judge-III, Khairpur with directions to
either allow the statement of the withdrawal filed by the plaintiffs in toto as
sought or proceed with the matter in accordance with law. However, if petitioners
wish to add any new ground for seeking withdrawal of the suit, they would be
permitted to do so and their additional grounds would also be considered and
decided in accordance with law.
The
petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Sulemen Khan/PA