1972 PLP 346 (SCMR)
Mirza GHULAM JILANI‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NAZ AKHTAR AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1972 PLP 346 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mirza GHULAM JILANI‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NAZ AKHTAR AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 346 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 346 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1972 PLP 346 (SCMR) (Mirza GHULAM JILANI‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NAZ AKHTAR AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Asaf, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Gulzar Hasan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 30th June 1972.
- The learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, who happens to be an Advocate of the High Court and this Court also, moved an application for the restoration of the suit on the same day at 3‑45 p.m. on the ground that he was busy in the High Court up to 3 p.m. The then learned Civil Judge allowed the application and restored the appeal without any clear finding as to whether there was any sufficient cause within the meaning of the law.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 30th September 1971, in Civil Revision No. 444 of 1966). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3)‑No question of law involved‑Finding of fact, by Court below, concurrent‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court at Lahore in a revision petition. This revision arose in the following circumstances :‑
A suit filed by the present petitioner, which was pending it the Court of a Civil Judge of Lahore, was dismissed for default at 3 p.m. on the 10th of April 1963, as neither the learned counsel nor the plaintiff were present at the tune. The learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, who happens to be an Advocate of the High Court and this Court also, moved an application for the restoration of the suit on the same day at 3‑45 p.m. on the ground that he was busy in the High Court up to 3 p.m. The then learned Civil Judge allowed the application and restored the appeal without any clear finding as to whether there was any sufficient cause within the meaning of the law. 'The defendant successfully moved the High Court in revision against the said order and the High Court remanded the case back with a directive to decide the application afresh after, recording evidence. On such remand, a successor Civil Judge, after examining the plaintiff and his iearnc6 counsel, came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient cause for their non‑appearance at the time arid dismissed the application for restoration. This finding has been upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Lahore and in revision by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner, who was also the counsel for the plaintiff' at the time of hearing of the suit, has contended that the findings of the Courts below were based purely on conjectures and surmises. But on a perusal of the record, we find no substance in this contention. The findings had been arrived at after proper consideration of the evidence, and since the findings are concurrent, we see no sufficient ground for interference, particularly, as no question of law arises for consideration in this case. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave Refused.