2002 PLP 212 (SCMR)
FATEH MUHAMMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD and others-‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 212 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh and Mian Muhammad Ajmal, JJ |
| Parties | FATEH MUHAMMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD and others-‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 212 (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 2002 PLP 212 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh and Mian Muhammad Ajmal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 212 (SCMR) (FATEH MUHAMMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD and others-‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Revision‑‑ Dismissal for non‑prosecution‑‑‑Petitioner filed application for restoration with considerable delay and the same was dismissed by High Court‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Petitioner did not mention any reason as to why he did not inquire about the fate of the case from his counsel for about six months after the last date of hearing‑‑‑Negligence on the part of the petitioner was established‑‑ Judgment/order passed by High Court did not suffer from any illegality‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused.
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 28‑1‑2000 of the Lahore High Court passed in C.M. 1‑C/99 in C.R. No. 2447‑D/86).
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment/order dated 28‑1‑2000 of the Lahore High Court through which civil miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner seeking restoration of the revision petition dismissed for non‑prosecution, has been dismissed.
2. The revision petition was fixed for hearing on 11‑6‑1.999 on which date neither the petitioner nor his learned counsel appeared and the same was dismissed for non‑prosecution. Application filed by the petitioner seeking restoration of the revision petition has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 28‑1‑2000, against which leave to appeal has been sought.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner (when questioned admitted that there was nothing in the application as to why the petitioner did not inquire about the fate of the case from his learned counsel for about six months after the last date of hearing from which negligence on the part of the petitioner was fully established.
4. The judgment/order impugned in this petition does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./F‑45/S Petition dismissed.