1992 PLP 1216 (MLD)
KARIM AHMAD SIDDIQUI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMID‑‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1216 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, J |
| Parties | KARIM AHMAD SIDDIQUI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMID‑‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1216 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1216 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1216 (MLD) (KARIM AHMAD SIDDIQUI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMID‑‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.XLI, R.19‑‑‑Re‑admission of appeal‑‑‑Application for restoration of appeal dismissed in default‑‑‑Contention of appellant was that he had come to the Court on the said date but left it after informing the reader that he had severe headache and his counsel was also out of station‑‑‑No medical certificate supporting the contention of appellant was produced and application for restoration of appeal did not mention that the Reader of the Court was informed‑‑‑No evidence or affidavit of the Reader was placed ors record in support of assertion of the appellant‑‑‑Application for restoration of appeal was made after 12 days of its dismissal and no explanation for such delay was offered‑‑‑Contention of the appellant being not convincing, High Court declined to interfere in the order of dismissal of appeal in default by Appellate Court.
Judgment & Decree
Facts giving rise to this civil revision are that the petitioner, Karim Ahmad Siddiqui, filed an appeal against the respondent, Abdul Hamid, which was dismissed in default on 8th January, 1990. The petitioner made an application for restoration of the appeal stating that he had come to the Court on the said date but left it as he had severe headache. As for his counsel, it was stated by him that he was out of station .His explanation did not find favour with the learned Additional District Judge, who dismissed the appeal, and, therefore, his application was rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed on his application, the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.
2. No medical certificate supporting his averment of severe headache has been produced by the petitioner. Even if he had it, it was a minor ailment and the petitioner should have not left the Court, if he had gone there, especially when his counsel was out of station. Admittedly, he did not inform the learned Additional District Judge about his trouble before leaving the Court. According to the learned counsel, he brought his difficulty to the notice of the Reader of the learned Additional District judge but this has not been stated in'. the application for restoration of the appeal. His plea in this regard, therefore. appears to be afterthought. Further, there is no evidence or affidavit of the Reader in support of his assertion. It is. also noteworthy that the application fur restoration of the appeal was made after 12 days of the dismissal of the appeal. No explanation for this delay has been offered. If the petitioner was present o.. the date when the appeal was dismissed in default, he should have been quick in seeking its restoration but he acted otherwise. In view of all this, I am not impressed by the explanation tendered by the petitioner for his absence which resulted in the dismissal of his appeal for want of prosecution.
3. In view of the above discussion, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Additional District Judge by which he had refused to restore the petitioner's appeal, and dismiss this civil revision in limine. M.BA./K‑23/L Petition dismissed.