P L D 1993 Lahore 9 (PLP)
JAMAT ALI and 7 others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus BAHADUR ‑‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1993 Lahore 9 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Ch. Amjad Khan, J |
| Parties | JAMAT ALI and 7 others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus BAHADUR ‑‑‑‑ Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1993 Lahore 9 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1993 Lahore 9 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Ch. Amjad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1993 Lahore 9 (PLP) (JAMAT ALI and 7 others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus BAHADUR ‑‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑ O.XLI, R.19 & S.115 ‑‑‑ Dismissal of appeal for non‑prosecution‑‑ Application for restoration of appeal, still pending adjudication during course of which Appellate Court not acceding to request of defendants‑respondents for framing, issue on the question of fact as to misconception of date of hearing, which was claimed to be the basis for restoration of appeal, expressed the view that plea relating to misconception about the date of hearing of appeal did not require any issue to be framed or evidence to be taken ‑‑‑ Validity‑‑ Appellate Court could come to a finding about the existence or otherwise of sufficient cause regarding alleged misconception of date on basis of evidence alone ‑‑‑ Revision against impugned order of Court was, however, not admitted for the reason, that revision against every interim order of Court would unduly prolong parent litigation ‑‑‑ Grievance against such order, however could be agitated in the proceedings that might be maintained for challenging the ultimate order to be passed by the Court ‑‑‑ Revision being pre‑mature was dismissed in circumstances. [p. 101 A
- Sardar Muhammad Akram for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
An appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the District Court against the trial Court's decree of dismissal of his pre-emption suit came to itself be dismissed for non-prosecution and his application for restoration thereof is, after contest, still awaiting disposal. Therein, the petitioning vendee-defendants, the respondents in that Court, moved a miscellaneous application for the plea of restoration of appeal being put to issue for the purpose of decision being made on the basis of evidence. By the herein impugned order dated 6-7-1992, learned Additional District Judge refused to accede to the request of the defendants with the observation that plea relating to misconception about the date of hearing of appeal is such as is not in the need of any issue being framed thereabout or evidence having to be led for and against it. It is inconceivable that if not on the basis of evidence, how else win then the appellate Judge be able to come to a finding about the existence or otherwise of sufficient cause regarding the alleged misconception of date without the relevant facts being brought under consideration, upon their being duly proved or disproved? Then, why may the evidence have not to be the only basis for reaching any conclusion thereabout? Learned counsel has invited attention to Abdul Raoof v. Mst. Khalida PLD 1968 Lahore 423, which squarely supports his stand and knocks the bottom out of the order passed by the Additional District Judge. All the same, it is not necessary that this revision petition be admitted to regular hearing. Exercise of revisional power being discretionary in its nature" in the facts and circumstances of this litigation, I do not feel pursuaded to so admit it for the reason that such a course will unduly prolong the parent litigation and as against it, the grievance about unlawful treatment, if any, meted out to any matter under contest between the parties can well be agitated in the proceedings that may be maintained for challenging the ultimate order that may be made on the point in such a matter.
2. In the above view, this revision petition of as such, with the above observations. is premature and is disposed order accordingly AA./J-31/L