Fresh Application for Letter of Administration Maintainable After Dismissal in Default – High Court Principle
مقدمہ کا پس منظر
وراثتی معاملات میں اکثر ایسا ہوتا ہے کہ لیٹر آف ایڈمنسٹریشن (Letter of Administration) کے لیے دائر کردہ درخواست کسی وجہ سے غیرحاضری یا عدم پیروی پر خارج ہو جاتی ہے۔ اہم سوال یہ اٹھتا ہے کہ:
✔️ کیا پہلی درخواست کے خارج ہونے کے بعد دوبارہ نئی درخواست دائر ہو سکتی ہے؟
✔️ کیا Order IX Rule 9 CPC اس پر پابندی لگاتا ہے؟
ہائی کورٹ نے اس اہم قانونی نکتے کو نہایت وضاحت کے ساتھ طے کیا۔
---
ہائی کورٹ کا منفرد اصول (Core Principle)
اگر لیٹر آف ایڈمنسٹریشن کی درخواست عدم پیروی/غیرحاضری پر خارج ہو جائے اور اس پر کوئی اعتراض بھی دائر نہ ہو، تو وہ درخواست “سوٹ” کا درجہ حاصل نہیں کرتی؛ لہٰذا Order IX Rule 9 CPC لاگو نہیں ہوتا اور نئی درخواست دائر کرنا پوری طرح جائز ہے۔
یہی اس فیصلے کا بنیادی اور منفرد اصول ہے۔
---
اہم قانونی نکات جنہیں ہائی کورٹ نے واضح کیا
1) پہلی درخواست “سول سوٹ” نہیں تھی
عدالت نے کہا کہ چونکہ پہلی درخواست پر کوئی اعتراض دائر نہیں ہوا تھا، اس لیے کارروائی نے Section 295 Succession Act کے مطابق مقدمہ (suit) کی شکل اختیار نہیں کی تھی۔
---
2) غیرحاضری پر اخراج میرٹ پر فیصلہ نہیں ہوتا
درخواست عدم پیروی پر خارج کی گئی، اس لیے یہ کوئی ایسا فیصلہ نہیں تھا جو مستقبل میں رکاوٹ بن سکے۔
---
3) Order IX Rule 9 کا اطلاق نہیں ہو سکتا
کیونکہ پہلی کارروائی سوٹ ہی نہیں تھی، اس لیے اس کا اخراج Order IX Rule 9 CPC کے اندر نہیں آتا اور نئی درخواست ہر حال میں قابلِ سماعت ہے۔
---
4) وراثتی حقوق “جاری رہنے والے حقوق” ہیں
ہائی کورٹ نے کہا کہ وراثتی حق ختم نہیں ہوتا، اس لیے ورثا کو نئی درخواست دینے سے نہیں روکا جا سکتا۔
---
5) Res Judicata بھی لاگو نہیں ہوتی
چونکہ سوٹ نہیں بنا، اس لیے کوئی decree نہیں ہوئی اور نہ ہی Section 11 CPC کا اطلاق ہوتا ہے۔
---
6) ٹرائل کورٹ نے غلط طور پر درخواست مسترد کی
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ دوسری درخواست کو ناقابلِ سماعت قرار دینا قانون کے خلاف تھا، جسے کالعدم قرار دے دیا گیا۔
---
7) نئی درخواست میرٹ پر سنی جائے گی
عدالت نے ہدایت دی کہ نئی درخواست کو مکمل طور پر قانون اور میرٹ کے مطابق نمٹایا جائے۔
---
نتیجہ (Conclusion)
اس فیصلے نے ایک اہم اصول قائم کیا:
🔹 وراثتی معاملات میں پہلی درخواست کا اخراج ورثا کے بنیادی حق کو متاثر نہیں کرتا۔
🔹 نئی لیٹر آف ایڈمنسٹریشن کی درخواست ہمیشہ قابلِ سماعت ہوتی ہے، جب تک پہلی درخواست contested نہ ہوئی ہو۔
🔹 Order IX Rule 9 CPC اس قسم کی درخواستوں پر لاگو نہیں ہوتا۔
یہ فیصلہ وراثتی قوانین کے اطلاق میں ایک واضح اور مضبوط رہنمائی فراہم کرتا ہے۔
---Must read Judgement
Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) (SECTION 295), 2022 CLC 139 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN, (C.P. No.1474 of 2019, decided on 22nd March, 2021)
HEAD NOTE
2022 C L C 139 [Balochistan]
Before Jamal Khan Mandokhail, CJ and Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail, J
****ABDUL RAUF and 4 others—-****Petitioners
Versus
****DIRECTOR ESTATE, QUETTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY QUETTA and another—-****Respondents
C.P. No.1474 of 2019, decided on 22nd March, 2021.
(a) In accordance with the Succession Act (Act XXXIX of 1925), Section 295, and the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) of 1908, Order IX, Rule 9, an application for the grant of letters of administration was initially dismissed by the Trial Court due to non-prosecution. A subsequent application was also dismissed under Order IX, Rule 9 of the CPC. The District Court rejected the revision petition. It was held that since the case was dismissed at an early stage for non-attendance and was not opposed by any interested party, the proceedings did not rise to the level of a civil suit, nor was a decree issued by the Trial Court upon its dismissal. The relief sought was continuous, and thus, a new application was not restricted by Order IX, Rule 9 of the CPC. A fresh application could be submitted despite the previous dismissal, as the petitioner’s significant rights required proper evaluation and could not be disregarded on mere technical grounds. The constitutional petition was approved, instructing the Trial Court to consider the new application in strict accordance with the law and based on its own merits.
(b) Under the Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908), Sections 11 and Order IX, Rules 8 and 9, the dismissal of an application for non-prosecution, without a decision reached on its merits, does not fit the definition of a ‘suit decided’ and is not subject to the provisions of Section 11 and Order IX, Rule 9 of the CPC.
(c) According to the Succession Act (Act XXXIX of 1925), Section 295, and the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) of 1908, Section 9, if an application for the grant of letters of administration is contested by an interested party, the proceedings would assume the nature of a regular suit, to be tried by the Trial Court following the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
Advocate Abdul Sattar Sherani represented the petitioners.
Advocate Imran Khan Kakar represented the respondents.
Shai Haq Baloch, Assistant Advocate General, was also involved.
ORDER (Explained)
Chief Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail delivered the order regarding a case where petitioners filed an application for a letter of administration in the Civil Judge-VI Court, Quetta, which was dismissed for default and non-prosecution. A subsequent application was also dismissed on August 27, 2019, citing it was barred by Order IX, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The petitioners challenged this in a revision petition to the Additional District Judge-IV, Quetta, which was dismissed on November 28, 2019.
The petitioners’ counsel argued that the original application was at an initial stage and was uncontested, hence not decided on its merits, and the new application should not be barred under Section 11 and Order IX, Rule 9 of the CPC. The respondents’ counsel did not object to a new application, provided it was decided on legal and merit grounds.
After reviewing the case, the Court noted that the original application was dismissed under Order IX, Rule 8 of the CPC, which allows for dismissal if a defendant appears and the plaintiff does not. Since the proceedings were unopposed and dismissed early, they did not qualify as a civil suit. The Court found that the trial court’s use of Order IX, Rule 9 to bar a fresh application was incorrect because the original application wasn’t a suit and no decree was issued. The right to seek a letter of administration is continuous, allowing for new applications even after dismissal in default.
Citing precedents, the Court determined that the dismissal did not fit the definition of a suit decided on its merits. The orders to dismiss the initial and subsequent applications on technical grounds were thus deemed illegal and unsustainable. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and previous orders overturned. The trial court was instructed to proceed with the fresh application on its merits, with the petitioners advised to remain diligent and avoid unnecessary delays.
2022 C L C 139 [Balochistan]
Before Jamal Khan Mandokhail, CJ and Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail, J
****ABDUL RAUF and 4 others—-****Petitioners
Versus
****DIRECTOR ESTATE, QUETTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY QUETTA and another—-****Respondents
C.P. No.1474 of 2019, decided on 22nd March, 2021.
ORDER
JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, C.J.—-Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed an application for the grant of letter of administration before the court of Civil Judge-VI, Quetta (“trial Court”), which was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. The petitioners filed fresh application, which too was dismissed on 27.08.2019 on the ground that it was barred by the Order-IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the order of the trial court by filing a revision petition before the court of the Additional District Judge-IV, Quetta, which was also dismissed on 28.11.2019, hence this petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the earlier application for the grant of letter of administration filed by the petitioner was in its initial stage and it was not contested by any person, therefore, it was not decided on merits, as such, the fresh application was not barred under Section 11 and Order IX, Rule 9 of the C.P.C. He added that their was no objection from any corner upon the grant of the certificate to petitioners, therefore, merely on technicalities, the petitioners cannot be non-suited.
The learned counsel for the respondent showed no objection upon filing of the fresh application, provided it is decided in accordance with law and on merits.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the earlier application for the grant of a letter of administration filed by the petitioners was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution by the trial court, by exercising power under Order IX Rule 8 of C.P.C., which is reproduced as under:-
“8. Procedure where defendant only appears.—Where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed, unless the defendant admits the claim, or part thereof, in which case the Court shall pass a decree against the defendant upon such admission, and, where part only of the claim has been admitted, shall dismiss the suit so far as it relates to the remainder.”
The provision of Order IX, Rule 8, C.P.C. empowers the court to dismiss a suit when a defendants appears and a plaintiffs does not appears, when the suit is called for hearing. According to the provision of Section 295 of the Succession Act, 1925, if the proceeding for the grant of letter of administration is contested by an interested person, then the proceedings take the character of a regular suit, which shall be tried by the trial court in accordance with the provision of the Civil Procedure Code. In the case in hand, the proceedings were in its initial stages and there was no contest on behalf of any interested person, before it was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution, consequently, the proceedings did not attain the status of a civil suit.
The trial court while dismissing the subsequent application, exercised the power under Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. according to which, “where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under rule 8: the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action”. The said provision of law debars a plaintiff from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action, but as has been stated hereinabove that the earlier application filed by the petitioners was neither a suit, nor upon its dismissal, a decree was passed by the trial court, therefore, there was no suit decided. Similarly, fresh application filed by the petitioners was also not to be considered as suit, but the courts below have failed to consider the fact that even after dismissal of the earlier application in-default and for non-prosecution the fresh application does not come within the purview of Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. In this behalf reliance has been placed on the case reported in PLJ 2001 Magazine 372 SC (India) and AIR 1962 RAJ 139. Besides, the relief claimed for the grant of letter of administration is a continuous right, therefore, a fresh application can be filed despite dismissal of the earlier one. Reliance has been placed on the case reported in PLD 1967 SC 402. Under such circumstances, dismissal of the application for grant of a letter of administration, under Rule 9 of Order IX, C.P.C., by the trial court was illegal. Thus, the subsequent application filed under section 295 of the Succession Act, 1925 is quit competent.
Without prejudice to above, even otherwise, the earlier application was not fixed for hearing as provided by Rule 8, C.P.C., therefore, dismissal of the application in default and for non-prosecution, without deciding the same on merits also does not come within the definition of suit decided, as such, it also does not hit by the provision of Section 11, C.P.C. and Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. Since, a valuable right of the petitioner is involved in the matter, which requires proper adjudication, therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied such right, simply on technicalities. The courts below did not consider the legal and factual aspects of the case and have non-suited the petitioner, which is an illegality, consequently, both the orders impugned are not sustainable.
Thus, in view of above, the petition is allowed and the orders dated 27.08.2019 and 28.11.2019 passed by the courts below are set aside. The fresh application filed by the petitioners shall be deemed to be pending before the trial court, which is directed to proceed with the matter and to decide the same strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits. The petitioners should remain vigilant and to avoid unnecessary adjournments.
ZH/111/Bal. Petition allowed.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
No comments:
Post a Comment