2002 PLP 1968 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 115 & 151‑‑‑Revision, restoration of‑‑‑Relevant file missing from the office‑‑‑Failure of counsel to check cause list‑‑‑Revision was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 3‑11‑2000, as the counsel of the petitioner inadvertently could not check the cause list properly‑‑ Application for restoration of the revision was filed on 19‑3‑2001, because the file in the office could not be located by the staff and the counsel personally checked all the registers and came to know that the case was dismissed for non‑prosecution‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Applicant failed to give any justifiable/sufficient reason to restore the revision‑‑‑High Court declined to allow the application for restoration of revision‑‑‑Application was dismissed in circumstances. House Building Finance Corporation v. Mrs. Sarwar Jehan PLD 1992 Kar. 329 ref. S.M. Alam for Applicant. Muzaffar Imam for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th May, 2002. This is an application, filed under section 151, C.P,C., seeking restoration of main civil revision to *its original position, which was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 3‑11‑2000. In response to its notice, learned counsel for the respondent has filed objection. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that cause list for 3‑11‑2000 could not be properly checked by him, inadvertently. It has, further, been contended that non‑appearance on the said date on behalf of the applicant was unintentional. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that thereafter he remained intact with the office and had constantly, been enquiring about the date of hearing and also whereabouts of the file. However, he succeeded to know the date but the file could not be located up to 19‑3‑2001 when he personally checked all the Registers of the concerned branch and came to know that the above Revision was dismissed for non‑prosecution. He has relied upon the case of House Building Finance Corporation v. Mrs. Sarwar Jehan PLD 1992 Kar. 329 in support of his contentions. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has opposed the restoration. of the main case and contended that the restoration application has been moved for about 4 to 5 months later, which is time‑barred and legally it cannot be restored. He has relied upon the case of Messrs Ganisons Industries Limited, Karachi v. Mirza Akhlaque Ahmed PLD 1974 Kar 339 in support of his contentions. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel and perused the record. It is true that in the absence of specific provisions, the Court exercises inherent jurisdiction under section 151, C.P.C. for restoration of revision and since no limitation is prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1908 for submission of such application, the residuary Article 181 will be applicable which stipulates the period of three years for filing of application from the date when the right to apply accrues but also the Court has to keep in mind the reasons which are shown for non appearance due to which the main case was dismissed. I am not convinced with the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that the file in the office could not be located by the staff and it is he who himself personally checked all the registers and came to know that his case was dismissed for non‑prosecution. The perusal of order‑sheet shows that before 3‑11‑2000 the case was, constantly, being fixed for regular hearing after about every five to six weeks and lastly when on 3‑11‑2001 the case was dismissed for non‑prosecution and he could not make his appearance due to inadvertently non‑checking cause list on his part, it was his duty to enquire about the date of hearing from Roster Branch where it is the practice that upon apprising last date of hearing, they immediately inform about the next date. The contention that for about four to five months, file was not available in the office is also not convincible. When the learned counsel succeeded to know that the case was fixed on 3‑11‑2000 and when the file was not being located in the concerned branch, he should, immediately, have approached the Roster Branch, which also gets the result of the date on the cause list through Reader of the Court. If the learned counsel would have approached the Roster Branch, he must have been informed about the result i.e. dismissal for non‑prosecution and thereafter he should have presented application for restoration in the office. Contention with regard to checking of the registers in the concerned branch is also misconceived for the reason that it was the duty of the clerk concerned to inform the learned counsel about the file. If every learned counsel is allowed to check the Register, then the process of office work would be affected and there is no need of the staff to work in the office. In the circumstances, I do not see any justifiable/sufficient reason to allow this application, which, accordingly, is dismissed. C.M.A. No.938 of 2001, stands, disposed of. Q.M.H./M.A.K./K‑61/K