ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

Constitutional Petition No. D- 909  of 2022.

Date of hearing                                Order with signature of Judge.

1.For orders on office objection as flag A.

2.for orders on M.A No.2940/2022.

3.For hearing of  main case.                     

27.02.2024.

                        Mr. Waqar Ahmed A. Chandio, advocate for the petitioners.

                        Mr. Ayaz Ali Noorani, advocate for the respondents.

                        Mr. Munwar Ali Abbasi, Asstt: A.G.  

======

                        Counsel for the respondents submits that instant petition has been directed against order dated 12.9.2022 vide Civil Revision No.27 of 2022 re: Sikander Ali and others v. Badaruddin and others (Page No.173) whereby  Revisional Court while dismissing  Civil Revision Application No.27 of 2022 filed by the petitioners, had maintained order dated 26.3.2022 passed by the trial court vide FC Suit No.28 of 2021 re: Badaruddin and  others v. Sikander Ali and others by which the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioners/defendants was rejected. During pendency of instant petition the  trial court had settled down issues from the pleadings of the parties and after recording evidence and hearing learned counsels, decreed the suit of the respondents. He, therefore, submits that petitioners had contested the suit before the trial Court which has been decreed, against such decree the petitioners have also maintained  Civil Appeal which is still pending adjudication before the Appellate Court, hence instant petition, in view of above legal position, has become infructuous and seeks its disposal.

                        When confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioners under instructions, does not wish to press instant petition alongwith pending applications which is not opposed by learned Asstt: A.G. Sindh. Order accordingly.

JUDGE

                                                                                    JUDGE

shabir

Counsel for the respondents submits that instant petition has been directed against the order whereby Revisional Court had maintained order passed by the trial Court whereby the application  under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by  the petitioner/defendant was rejected. During pendency of instant petition, the parties contested the case.  Even the petitioners/defendants filed written statement and after framing of the issues, led evidence, submitted arguments whereafter the trial Court had decreed  the suit against the petitioners.  He further submits that the petitioners have also filed Civil Appeal before the District Judge which is pending adjudication, therefore, instant petition, in view of above legal position, has become infrutuous and seeks its disposal.  

                        When confronted with the above, learned counsel for the petitioners does not press this petition alongwith pending applications which is not opposed by the other side.  Order accordingly.

JUDGE

                                                                                    JUDGE

shabir