1990CLC771 (PLP)

‑‑‑

0. IX, R. 9‑‑‑Application for arbitration and connected execution petition were dismissed for non‑prosecution‑‑‑Respondent filed separate applications for the restoration of the application for arbitration and for the restoration of execution petition‑‑‑Both the applications were accepted by a single order and application' for arbitration and execution petition, were restored on the ground that the date when the application for arbitration and execution petition were dismissed, was not a date of hearing‑‑‑Contention that since respondent had failed to show sufficient cause for his non‑appearance, therefore applications for restoration of the application for arbitration and execution petition should have been dismissed‑‑‑Held, case was fixed for the hearing of arguments in the application to summon the witnesses for cross‑examination and as such the main application for arbitration could not have been dismissed for non‑prosecution‑‑‑Court, at the most, could dismiss the application to recall the witnesses for cross‑examination for non‑prosecution‑‑‑Execution petition having simply been put up alongwith the application for arbitration and having not been fixed for hearing on that date, could not be dismissed‑‑‑No exception therefore could be taken to the order of restoration in circumstances. Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioner. Ashiq Ali Oureshi, General Attorney for Respondent. Application for arbitration Filed by M/s. Riaz‑ur‑Rchman & Co. the respondent, against the Province of Punjab and others and the connected execution petition were dismissed for non‑prosecution on 18‑3‑1986 by learned Senior Civil Judge, Okara. On 16‑4‑1986 the respondent filed separate applications for the restoration of the application for arbitration and for the restoration of the execution petition. Both the applications were accepted vide single order dated 9‑2‑1989 and application for arbitration and execution petition were restored: Hence two revisions Nos 1973/89 and 1972/89. I propose to dispose of them through single judgment.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the respondent has failed to show sufficient cause for his non‑appearance on 18‑3 1986, therefore, the applications for the restoration of the application for arbitration and execution petition should have been dismissed.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel carefully. I find that the learned trial Court has restored the application for arbitration and the execution petition which were dismissed for non‑prosecution, on the ground that 18‑3‑1986 when the application for arbitration and the execution petition were dismissed, was not a date of hearing. I do not see any reason to disagree with him. Undisputedly the case was fixed for the hearing of arguments in the application to summon the witnesses for cross‑examination and as such the main application for arbitration could not have been dismissed for non‑prosecution. At the most the application to recall the witnesses for cross‑examination could have been dismissed for non‑prosecution. The execution petition had simply been put up alongwith the application for arbitration and was not fixed for hearing on that date. That being the position, no exception can be taken to the impugned orders.

4. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the revisions are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their on costs. M.B.A./P‑98/L Petitions dismissed.