1989 PLP 1203 (SCMR)
BILLA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1203 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | BILLA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1203 (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 1989 PLP 1203 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1203 (SCMR) (BILLA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑O.IX, R.9‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Application for restoration of revision dismissed for non‑appearance of counsel on date of hearing and non‑performance of other acts for completion including steps for service of respondents‑‑Neglect/refusal to perform other acts for the progress of the case, held, could justifiably be made a ground for refusal to restore the revision petition in circumstances of the case.
- Azeemuddin, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24‑4‑1984 in C.R. No.1705/D/83).
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in this petition, against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioner's restoration application against the dismissal for non‑prosecution of their Civil Revision. There were two questions before the High Court: (1) Cause of the non appearance at the relevant time (during the day) of the petitioner's learned counsel, on the date of hearing of the revision; and (2) the non‑performance of other acts for completion including steps for service of the respondents. In so far as the first question is concerned, the explanation of the learned counsel, who appeared in the High Court on the same day at a later time, might have furnished a ground for examination. But the neglect/refusal to perform other acts for the progress of the case, in the circumstances of this case, could justifiably be made a ground for refusal to restore the revision petition. The learned Judge having applied mind to this aspect and having declined to exercise the discretion m petitioner's favour, we do not find any justification to interfere. The petitioners do not seem to have a good case on merits either. Leave to appeal is refused. M.BA./B‑95/S Leave refused.