2025 SCMR 215 (PLP)
SHARIF AHMAD — Petitioner Versus RASHID AHMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2025 SCMR 215 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Yahya Afridi, C.J. and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, J |
| Parties | SHARIF AHMAD — Petitioner Versus RASHID AHMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 SCMR 215 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 SCMR 215 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Yahya Afridi, C.J. and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 SCMR 215 (PLP) (SHARIF AHMAD — Petitioner Versus RASHID AHMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Naveed Shabbir, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (through video link from Lahore).
- Qazi Misbahul Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (through video link from Lahore).
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 12.06.2019 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Review Application No. 12674 of 2019).
S.115
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185 (3)
Principle
Petitioner was aggrieved of dismissal of his revision petition by High Court for non-prosecution
In cases where revisional Court assumed suo motu jurisdiction, only such cases ought not to be dismissed for non-prosecution
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others PLD 1970 SC 1 and Farman Ali v. Muhammad Yousaf Ali and another PLD 1992 SC 330 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
YAHYA AFRIDI, CJ.
Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby his review application has been dismissed.
2. At the very outset, we confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out whether any date of knowledge of case being dismissed for non-prosecution was stated in the application for restoration, the answer was in the negative; however, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgments reported as Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others (PLD 1970 SC 1), and Farman Ali v. Muhammad Yousaf Ali and another (PLD 1992 SC 330). We have gone through the said judgments and find that the same are not relevant to the instant case. Even otherwise, this Court has by now settled the principle that in cases where revisional court assumes suo motu jurisdiction, only such cases ought not to be dismissed for non-prosecution. No case for interference is made out. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. MH/S-36/SC Petition dismissed.