2010 PLP 703 (CLC)

RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.

Through this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 22-10-2007 and 2-4-2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan whereby he had dismissed the civil revision due to non-prosecution and thereafter rejected the application for restoration thereof, respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit for possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act on 10-6-1989 which was decreed on 10-4-1993. The petitioner/defendant assailed the judgment and decree before this Court through Civil Revision No.222-D-1993 which was transmitted back to the District Judge due to changing in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts below whereupon the learned Additional District Judge after issuing the notices to the present petitioner who did not appear before that Court and same was dismissed on 22-10-2007. The petitioners filed application for restoration of revision which was dismissed on 2-4-2008 hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that Revisional Court passed the order for issuance of notice Pairvee for the petitioners as well as their counsel on 6-9-2007; that on 4-10-2007 again notice were issued to the petitioners and their counsel for 22-10-2007. Those notices were never served to the petitioners and process-server report dated 10-10-2007 available on the record indicate that counsel for the petitioner Ch. Ehsan Ullah, Advocate has stated that petitioners have taken back the case file and he has no instructions and petitioners may be summoned personally but learned Revisional Court have not issued any such notice for the service of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants undertakes that they will pay the fine/costs of Rs.5000 to the respondents/plaintiff.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court that there is no sufficient ground exists for the restoration of the case of the petitioner.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. There is no doubt that admittedly Civil Revision No.222-D of 1993 has filed on 17-4-1993 in this Court in view of the amendment in C.P.C. where revision power under section 115, C.P.C. had been taken away from the District Judge. This Court suspended operation of the impugned decree on 19-4-1993. After restoration of the jurisdiction under section 115 of the District Judge/Additional District Judge, above said revision was transmitted back on 27-2-2006 for the disposal in accordance with law. Parties were directed to appear on 31-3-2006 whereupon the learned Additional District Judge issued notice Pairvee to the petitioner and his counsel on 4-10-2007 for 22-10-2007. On 22-10-2007 petition was dismissed due to non-prosecution. Learned Revisional Court have ignored the process-server report dated 10-10-2007 which is annexure-Q in which it was reported that learned counsel for the petitioner Ch. Ehsan Ullah Advocate has stated that file has taken back by the petitioners and he has no instructions. Notice should be issued to the petitioners. Learned Revisional Court has dismissed the revision petition ignoring the process server report and passed the impugned order in hastly manner. Nothing is available on record which can indicate whether in compliance of the order dated 6-9-2007 and 4-10-2007 any notice Pairvee was issued or even served upon the petitioner or not. Law required that Court should decide the cases on merits instead of adopting shortcut method for the earning units. Revisional Court instead of dismissed it in default could have disposed of the same in accordance with law on merits. Law favour adjudication on merits unless there exist some insuperable practical obstacle. Due to the negligence of the counsel or Court official, litigant should not suffer. Learned Revisional Court have committed irregularities in dismissing the revision petition which was pending for last 14 years instead of dismissing the revision due to non-prosecution it should have been decided on merits. I am fortified by the view in case Muhammad Sadiq v. Mst. Bashira and 9 others PLD 2000 SC 820 in which my lord Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary, J. has held that:

"Dismissal of a civil revision after its admission by the Court seized with it for non-prosecution is not legally well-recognized for the reason that jurisdiction of a Revisional Court under section 115, C.P.C. is invoked by an aggrieved person to point out illegalities or irregularities or the jurisdictional defects in the proceedings and the orders passed by the subordinate forums. Therefore, on entertaining a revision petition, Court exercises its supervisory jurisdiction to satisfy itself as to whether jurisdiction has been exercised properly and whether proceedings of the subordinate Courts do suffer or not from any illegality or irregularity. In other words, after filing a revision, matter rests between the revisional and subordinate Courts".

7. In view of the above said discussion this petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 22-10-2007 and 2-4-2008 are set aside. Learned Revisional Court is directed to conclude the matter within the period of 30 days. In view of the undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendants, the petitioners are directed to pay the fine of Rs.5000 to the respondents/plaintiffs. Parties are directed to appear before the Revisional Court on 9-6-2009. H.B.T./F-44/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.