2010 PLP 1017 (CLC)
SHAHBAZ ALI — Petitioner Versus FAREEDA KHANUM and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1017 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAHBAZ ALI — Petitioner Versus FAREEDA KHANUM and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1017 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 1017 (CLC)?
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 1017 (CLC) (SHAHBAZ ALI — Petitioner Versus FAREEDA KHANUM and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Manzoor Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Ch. Saeed Akhtar Kamboh for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Dismissal of constitutional petition for non-prosecution--Application for restoration of petition
Only ground asserted by the petitioner in support of application for restoration of petition was that his counsel had left for higher education abroad
No date had been given to show as to when his counsel left abroad
Petitioner had contended that he was unaware of the dismissal of the petition and such dismissal came to his knowledge from the Executing Court when a copy of the dismissal order of the petition was presented by the counsel for the respondent
No exact date of such knowledge had been disclosed, when the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of the petition
Petitioner had not been vigilant in pursuing the matter--Indolence and carelessness was apparent from the conduct of the petitioner-No plausible reason had been provided in the application for the long delay in moving the application for restoration of the petition
No valid ground having been shown to condone the delay, applications were dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
C.M. No.4570 of 2009 C.M. No.4571of 2009 IJAZ-UL-AHSAN, J.
Through C.M.No.4570 of 2009, the petitioner seeks restoration of the petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 10-2-2009. C.M.No.4572 of 2009 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of the writ petition.
2. The only ground asserted by the petitioner in support of the application for restoration of the writ petition is that his learned counsel had left for higher education abroad.
3. No date has been given to show as to when the learned counsel left.
4. It has been contended that the petitioner was unaware of the dismissal of the petition and such dismissal came to his knowledge from the learned executing Court when a copy of the dismissal order of the petition was presented by learned counsel for the respondent.
5. No exact date of such knowledge has been disclosed, when the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of the petition.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the applications on the ground that the petitioner was indolent and careless. He has referred to the record of this Court, which indicates that intimation regarding dismissal of the writ petition was dispatched by the Assistant Registrar (Writ) of this Court on 1-3-2009. The learned counsel submits that even if the limitation is reckoned from the said date, the application is barred by almost 9 months for which no plausible explanation has been given.
7. I have examined the record as well as the order sheet, which indicates that the petitioner has not been vigilant in pursuing the matter. Indolence and carelessness is apparent from the conduct of the petitioner. No plausible reason or explanation has been provided in the application for the long delay in moving the application for restoration of the petition. There is no valid ground to condone the delay.
8. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in these applications, which are dismissed. H.B.T./S-3/L Applications dismissed.