2010 PLP 674 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and 2 others — Petitioners Versus KHAN AMIR and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 674 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and 2 others — Petitioners Versus KHAN AMIR and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 674 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 674 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 674 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and 2 others — Petitioners Versus KHAN AMIR and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Azam Awan for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Amir Khan Niazi for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
O. IX, Rr.8 & 13
Application for restorations of suit
On date fixed for recording of the evidence of the plaintiff, they having failed to appear, suit was dismissed in default
Application filed by the plaintiffs for restoration of suit had been dismissed even by the Appellate Court
Ground taken for restoration was that their counsel had incorrectly written the date of hearing
Application for restoration of suit was not supported by the affidavit of the counsel for the plaintiffs
Neither a copy of the diary nor of the file of the counsel for the plaintiffs was produced before the trial Court
Application for restoration of suit as well the appeal was dismissed
Plaintiffs, in circumstances, could not sub stantiate the reason for non-appearance, their application therefore, was rightly dismissed
No illegality or material irregularity was found in the exercise of jurisdiction by the two courts below warranting interference by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.
This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment, dated 20-12-2008, whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioners against the order, dated 26-11-2008 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Civil Revision are that the petitioners filed a suit against the respondent which was fixed of hearing on 22-7-2008 for recording of the evidence of the petitioners. The petitioners did not enter appearance and the suit was dismissed in default. The petitioners filed an application for restoration of the suit which was dismissed, vide order, dated 26-11-2008. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal which failed to find favour and was dismissed, vide the impugned judgment, dated 20-12-2008.
3. The counsel of the parties have been heard and record, appended with this petition, has been perused.
4. The ground taken for restoration was that the counsel had incorrectly written the date of hearing. It has been noticed that the application was not supported by an affidavit of the learned counsel. Before the Trial Court, neither a copy of the diary nor of the file of the petitioners' counsel was filed. In the above perspective, the application for restoration was dismissed and the appeal also dismissed. In the facts an circumstances of the case, the petitioners could not substantiate the reason for non-appearance, hence the petition was rightly dismissed. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the two Courts below warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./M-118/L Petition dismissed.