2006 PLP 1039 (SCMR)
GHULAM SARWAR KHAN ABDALI and others — Petitioners Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1039 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Nasir-ul-Mulk, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM SARWAR KHAN ABDALI and others — Petitioners Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1039 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1039 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Nasir-ul-Mulk, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1039 (SCMR) (GHULAM SARWAR KHAN ABDALI and others — Petitioners Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Parvez Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Syed Haider Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmud ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th April, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 17-5-2005 of the Lahore High Court passed in C.M. No.386 of 2005 in Civil Revision No.1864 of 2001).
S. 115
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Dismissal of revision for non-prosecution
Petitioners sought restoration which application was dismissed both by the Trial Court and High Court
Contention of the petitioners was that revision was admitted to regular hearing by a different Judge of the High Court and the said Judge was not available during the days when the case was fixed and dismissed for non-prosecution; that the petitioners remained under the impression that the said Judge was not available and that revision would not be fixed during his absence; that additionally the petitioners had taken brief from the counsel who represented them in the revision and the said counsel remained under the impression that he was no longer their counsel and thus he did not appear on the relevant date and because of such facts absence of petitioners was not intentional but on account of misconception beyond their control
Held, there was nothing in the High Court Rules or in the "admitting note" of the revision that revision shall be fixed before the same Judge who had admitted revision
Petitioners remained under a misconception not recognized in law and so far as non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel under the impression that the brief having been taken away by the petitioners he was no longer their counsel, was concerned, the same was not a sufficient ground
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 17-5-2005 vide which a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed (C.M. No.386 of 2005) seeking restoration of Civil Revision (No.1864 of 2001) which stood dismissed for non-prosecution vide the order, dated 25-3-2005.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly the afore-referred Civil Revision was admitted to regular hearing b' t different learned Judge and the said learned Judge was not available during the days when the case fixed and dismissed for non-prosecution; that the petitioners remained under the impression that the said learned Judge is not available and that the civil revision would not be fixed during the non-availability of the said learned Judge; that additionally the petitioners had taken the brief from the counsel who represented them in the civil revision and the said counsel remained under the impression that he was no longer counsel of the petitioners and did not appear on 25-3-2005, in consequence of which the civil revision was dismissed A for non-prosecution. The afore-referred narration of facts, learned counsel contended, indicates that the absence of petitioners was not intentional but on account of misconception beyond petitioner's control.
3. We have considered the submissions made.
4. There is nothing in the High Court's rules or in the admitting note of Civil Revision (No.1864 of 2001) that a civil revision shall be fixed before the same learned Judge who has admitted it. That being so, petitioners remained under .a misconception not recognized in law. So far as non-appearance of petitioner's counsel on 25-3-2005 under the impression that the brief had been taken away by the petitioners and that the former was under the impression that he was no longer their counsel is concerned, the same again is not a sufficient ground. Firstly because it is not denied that on the afore-referred date as per record the counsel who did not appear still represented the petitioners and his power of attorney had not been withdrawn, secondly the petitioners himself had to be careful and any slackness or indolence has to be visited with a consequence provided in law.
5. In the afore-referred circumstances, the impugned judgment, therefore, is unexceptionable. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed and leave refused. M.B.A./G-15/SC Petition dismissed.