1994 PLP 1972 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE,
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1972 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1972 (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 1994 PLP 1972 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1972 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.Z. Khalil, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Ashraf Wahla, Advocate Supreme Court and MA. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.
- Date of hearing: 10th May, 1994.
- 2. The petitioners had filed an application for restoration on the ground that they had engaged Mian Samiuddin, Advocate when they filed Constitution petitioner in the year 1984. The said Advocate retired from the legal profession in the year 1987 and the petitioners were neither aware of his retirement nor about the date of hearing and thus could not appear on 4‑10‑1992 when the petition was dismissed. It was alleged that when the respondents were moving for taking possession, the petitioners came to know about it and then filed application for restoration. This plea was not accepted by the learned Judge in Chambers.
- 3. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that sufficient reason had been made out for setting aside the order. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Wahla, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the petition contended that the petitioners and their advocate had been negligent in prosecuting the matter and therefore the order of dismissal cannot be set aside. It may be noted that the Constitution petition was filed in the year 1984 and had not come up for hearing till 1992. During this period the petitioners' Advocate retired from practice, but failed to inform the petitioners. This being a Constitution petition, the parties are usually not required to appear on each date of hearing unless instructed by the Advocate. Considering the fact that the petition did not come up for hearing for long the petitioners had relied upon the Advocate. In these circumstances, there was sufficient ground for setting aside the order particularly as the learned Advocate had filed his affidavit. We, therefore, convert this petition into an appeal and allow it. The order of dismissal of the Constitution petition is set aside and the same is restored to its original number. The petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.1,000 to the learned counsel for the respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal front the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 17‑3‑1993 passed in C. M. No. 2910/1992 in W.P. 2723/1984). ‑‑‑‑S. 151‑‑‑Constitution. of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Dismissal of application for restoration of Constitutional petition dismissed for non prosecution‑‑‑Constitutional petition filed in 1984, came up for hearing in 1992‑‑‑Petitioners' counsel during pendency of Constitutional petition had retired from practice which fact was not brought to the notice of petitioners‑‑ Petitioners' counsel had also filed affidavit confirming the factum of his retirement and non‑communicating the same to petitioners‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed‑‑‑Order of dismissal of constitutional petition was set aside and same was directed to be restored to its original number.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal front the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 17‑3‑1993 passed in C. M. No. 2910/1992 in W.P. 2723/1984). ‑‑‑‑S. 151‑‑‑Constitution. of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Dismissal of application for restoration of Constitutional petition dismissed for non prosecution‑‑‑Constitutional petition filed in 1984, came up for hearing in 1992‑‑‑Petitioners' counsel during pendency of Constitutional petition had retired from practice which fact was not brought to the notice of petitioners‑‑ Petitioners' counsel had also filed affidavit confirming the factum of his retirement and non‑communicating the same to petitioners‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed‑‑‑Order of dismissal of constitutional petition was set aside and same was directed to be restored to its original number. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.Z. Khalil, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Muhammad Ashraf Wahla, Advocate Supreme Court and MA. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 to
5. Date of hearing: 10th May, 1994. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judge in Chambers whereby their application under section 151, C.P.C. for recalling order dated 4‑10‑1992 dismissing writ petition for non‑prosecution and seeking restoration thereof, was dismissed.
2. The petitioners had filed an application for restoration on the ground that they had engaged Mian Samiuddin, Advocate when they filed Constitution petitioner in the year 1984. The said Advocate retired from the legal profession in the year 1987 and the petitioners were neither aware of his retirement nor about the date of hearing and thus could not appear on 4‑10‑1992 when the petition was dismissed. It was alleged that when the respondents were moving for taking possession, the petitioners came to know about it and then filed application for restoration. This plea was not accepted by the learned Judge in Chambers.
3. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that sufficient reason had been made out for setting aside the order. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Wahla, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the petition contended that the petitioners and their advocate had been negligent in prosecuting the matter and therefore the order of dismissal cannot be set aside. It may be noted that the Constitution petition was filed in the year 1984 and had not come up for hearing till 1992. During this period the petitioners' Advocate retired from practice, but failed to inform the petitioners. This being a Constitution petition, the parties are usually not required to appear on each date of hearing unless instructed by the Advocate. Considering the fact that the petition did not come up for hearing for long the petitioners had relied upon the Advocate. In these circumstances, there was sufficient ground for setting aside the order particularly as the learned Advocate had filed his affidavit. We, therefore, convert this petition into an appeal and allow it. The order of dismissal of the Constitution petition is set aside and the same is restored to its original number. The petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.1,000 to the learned counsel for the respondents. AA./M‑2086/S Appeal allowed.