CLC 2004

2004 PLP 1873 (CLC)

Mst. PIARI JAN through General Attorney and another — Petitioners Versus HUKAM DAD and 2 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
C.M. No.371/C of 2003 in Civil Revision 108 of 1983, decided on 17th September, 2003.
Honorable Judges
Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2004 PLP 1873 (CLC)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J
Parties Mst. PIARI JAN through General Attorney and another — Petitioners Versus HUKAM DAD and 2 others — Respondents
Primary Law Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1873 (CLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1873 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1873 (CLC) (Mst. PIARI JAN through General Attorney and another — Petitioners Versus HUKAM DAD and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Representation

  • Sajid Ilyas Bhatti for Petitioners.
  • Waqarul Haq Sheikh for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 115

Revision

Dismissal of revision for non-prosecution

Application for restoration

Revision was admitted to regular hearing but Advocate representing revision petitioner having been elevated to Bench, petitioner engaged another counsel, who too seriously fell ill and was bed-ridden

Nobody having appeared on date fixed for hearing of revision petition, same was dismissed for non-prosecution

Validity-- Revision petition which was admitted to regular hearing, could not have been dismissed for non-prosecution, in circumstances of the case

No evidence was on record to the effect that petitioner had notice of dismissal of his revision petition for non-prosecution prior to issuance of notice in another case

Application of petitioner for restoration of revision was allowed and petition was restored to its original number.

Judgment & Decree

S. 115

Revision

Dismissal of revision for non-prosecution

Application for restoration

Revision was admitted to regular hearing but Advocate representing revision petitioner having been elevated to Bench, petitioner engaged another counsel, who too seriously fell ill and was bed-ridden

Nobody having appeared on date fixed for hearing of revision petition, same was dismissed for non-prosecution

Validity-- Revision petition which was admitted to regular hearing, could not have been dismissed for non-prosecution, in circumstances of the case

No evidence was on record to the effect that petitioner had notice of dismissal of his revision petition for non-prosecution prior to issuance of notice in another case

Application of petitioner for restoration of revision was allowed and petition was restored to its original number. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti for Petitioners. Waqarul Haq Sheikh for Respondents. The main civil revision, was admitted to regular hearing on 7-5-1983. Mr. Gul Zarin Kiani, Advocate, who was representing the petitioner, was elevated to the Bench. Thereafter the petitioner engaged Mr. Muhammad Hanif Bhatti, Advocate, who was seriously ill and bed ridden. Nobody appeared on 21-4-1998 on behalf of the petitioner and the petition was dismissed accordingly for non-prosecution.

2. Since the civil revision had been admitted to regular hearing vide order, dated 7-5-1983, it could have not been dismissed for non prosecution. It is admitted position on the record that Mr. Gul Zarin Kiani, learned counsel for the petitioner was elevated as a Judge of the High Court and the other counsel Mr. Muhammad Hanif Bhatti, Advocate, fell seriously ill and was bed-ridden on the date the order for dismissal of the revision petition for non-prosecution was passed. There is no evidence on the record that the petitioner had the notice of dismissal of the revision petition for non-prosecution prior to issuance of notice in another case.

3. Resultantly, this application is allowed, the civil revision is restored to its original number.

4. Since the matter pertains to the year, 1983, it is directed that the main revision petition be enlisted for hearing on any date in the first week of December, 2003. H.B.T./P-42/K Order according.