1988 PLP 2888 (MLD)
MAHAM ALI — Petitioner Versus NIAZ AHMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 2888 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | MAHAM ALI — Petitioner Versus NIAZ AHMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 2888 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 2888 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 2888 (MLD) (MAHAM ALI — Petitioner Versus NIAZ AHMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
O.XLI, R.17 and S.115--Dismissal of appeal in default--Remedy against--Where appeal before Appellate Court below was dismissed in default, revision before High Court against such order of dismissal, held, would not lie before filing of petition before Appellate Court below for restoration of dismissed appeal.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Revision No.1241 of 1987, decided on 4th August, 1987.
O.XLI, R.17 and S.115--Dismissal of appeal in default--Remedy against--Where appeal before Appellate Court below was dismissed in default, revision before High Court against such order of dismissal, held, would not lie before filing of petition before Appellate Court below for restoration of dismissed appeal. Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan for Petitioner. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked to set aside the order dated 28-6-1987 pronounced by Mr. Muhammad Salim Qureshi, the learned Additional District Judge, Okara, who had dismissed the application of the petitioner intended for the restoration of the appeal.
2. The petitioner had instituted a pre-emption suit which was dismissed and he lodged an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Okara. No body appeared on 24-3-1987 and the appeal was dismissed in default. Instead of filing a petition for the restoration of the appeal, the petitioner went up in revision before this Court. The petition for restoration of the appeal was filed on 17-6-1987 i.e. after about three months. The petition was barred by time and the application intended for the restoration of the appeal was dismissed by means of this impugned order.
3. It has been submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner wrongly went up in revision against the order of dismissal in default of the appeal and much time was consumed in the High Court. There should be a bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioner or his learned counsel. The Civil Revision obviously did not lie before a petition for restoration of dismissed appeal was filed. The petitioner did not prosecute the proceeding before this Court in good faith and the ignorance of law on the part of his lawyer is not condonable. The learned Additional District Judge has not committed any illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction as envisaged under section 115, C.P.C. I, therefore, see no merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same in limine. H . B . T . / M-434 / L Revision dismissed.