1997SCMR1158 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another ‑‑‑Petitioners Versus FAQIR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997SCMR1158 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another ‑‑‑Petitioners Versus FAQIR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997SCMR1158 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997SCMR1158 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997SCMR1158 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another ‑‑‑Petitioners Versus FAQIR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Restoration of revision petition dismissed in default was refused on the ground that said application was time‑barred and no application for condonation of delay had been filed‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and same was allowed for there was no material to rebut or doubt assertion of appellant that he and his counsel were not notified the date of hearing and that they came to know of it subsequently from which date application was well within time‑‑‑Order of High Court whereby revision was refused to be restored was set aside and case was remanded to High Court for‑ determining factual merits of assertion made in application claiming restoration and passing appropriate consequential order thereafter.
- Syed Munir Hussain, Advocate instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Bashir Ahmad, Advocate instructed by M. A. Qureshi, Advocate -on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th January, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 22‑4‑1992 passed in C.M. No. 229‑C of 1992 in Civil Revision No.843 of 1987). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ Sindh Industrial Trading Estates v. West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority PLD 1991 SC 250 rel.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated, 22‑4‑1992 whereby restoration of a revision petition dismissed in default was refused on the ground that the application was time‑barred and no application for condonation of delay had been filed.
2. Ex facie the application for restoration of the civil revision appeared to be barred by time but the explanation given for it was that the counsel of the parties had not been notified the date of hearing and instead mistakenly some other counsel had been so notified. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the decision of this Court in Sindh Industrial Trading Estates v. West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (PLD 1991 SC 250), the limitation could start from the date of knowledge and not from the date of order. The application being within time from the date of knowledge, no application for condonation of delay was at all required.
3. In view of the law laid down by this Court notice had issued to the respondent why the petition be not converted into appeal and the case remanded to the High Court for deciding the question of proper service on merits.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we convert this petition into an appeal and allow the same as there was no material to rebut or doubt the assertion of the appellant that he and his counsel were not notified the date of hearing and that they came to know of it subsequently from which date the application was well within time. While accepting the appeal, we set aside the order impugned and remand the proceedings to the High Court for determining the factual merit of the assertion made in the application claiming restoration and passing consequential orders thereafter. A.A./M‑3090/S Appeal accepted.