2010 PLP 2236 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another — Petitioners Versus GHULAM SHAFIA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 2236 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Muhammad Tariq, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another — Petitioners Versus GHULAM SHAFIA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 2236 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 2236 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Muhammad Tariq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 2236 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another — Petitioners Versus GHULAM SHAFIA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana M. Arif Vice Counsel for Respondent No.4.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5, Arts.168 & 181
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Application for re-admission of appeal dismissed in default
Petitioners' appeal was transferred from High Court Circuit Bench to the principal seat; transfer of appeal was communicated to the petitioners but they waited for notice of fixation which they did not receive; on 5-9-2009 petitioners came to know that their appeal had been dismissed on 1-2-2006
Petitioners contended that they did not file application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay as the period for restoration under Art.181, Limitation Act, 1908 was three years
Held, petitioners, admittedly were informed of the transfer of their case but they remained indolent whereas they should have been vigilant
Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Arts. 168 & 181
Applicability of Arts.168 & 181, Limitation Act, 1908
Scope
Restoration of appeal was not governed by Art.181 of Limitation Act, 1908 which provided for three years limitation period but by Art.168 of the Act which provided for readmission of appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Art.168
Limitation, computation of
Time for readmission of appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Period of limitation ran from the date of dismissal of appeal for non prosecution and not from gaining knowledge of its dismissal. 1992 SCMR 1895 ref. Haji Ghulam Sarwar v. Daya Ram 1975 SCMR 179 rel. Ch. M. Jahanzeb Wahla for the Petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.--Through these application, the applicants/ petitioners seek restoration of their Appeal No.117 of 2004 which was dismissed by this Court on 1-2-2006 in default.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants/ petitioners submits that the applicants/ petitioners are residents of District Pakpattan who had filed this appeal before Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan under R.S.A. No.19 of 2001 but subsequently District Pakpattan came within the jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, Lahore and the titled appeal was accordingly transferred to this Court where it was renumbered as RSA 117 of 2004. Further submits that the petitioners were informed about the transfer of titled case at Lahore but no notice for fixation thereof was served upon the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners waited for the notice regarding fixation of the case but they did not receive notice from the office. Further contends that after passing of reasonable time, the petitioners came to Lahore on 5-9-2007 and enquired about the case, then it came to their knowledge that the titled appeal had already been dismissed in default on 1-2-2006. Hence this application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that under Article 181 of Limitation Act, the period for restoration is three years, therefore, they did not feel the necessity of filing an application under section 5 of Limitation Act for the condonation of delay. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the law laid down by honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1992 SCMR 1895.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. In para 2 of the application under section 151, C.P.C. for restoration of titled appeal, the petitioners have admitted that they were informed by the office of this Court that their case has been transferred to Lahore. Therefore, it was duty of the petitioners to remain vigilant about their case but they remained indolent. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the restoration of appeal is governed under Article 181 of the Limitation Act which provides a period of three years, therefore they did not file application under section 5 of Limitation Act for the condonation of delay is misconceived as the time for readmission of appeal dismissed for non prosecution is 30 days. The said period runs from the date of dismissal of appeal for non prosecution and not from the date of gaining knowledge of dismissal because the matter in issue falls under Article 168 of Limitation Act and not under Article 181 of Limitation Act. Law laid down by honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case Haji Ghulam Sarwar v. Daya Ram reported as 1975 SCMR 179 is very much clear on the point.
7. In view of the above discussion, both the C.Ms. are without merit which are dismissed. A.R.K./M-215/L Applications dismissed.