1989L62 (PLP)
SANAULLAH BUTT‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 3 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989L62 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | fazl‑i‑Mahmood, J |
| Parties | SANAULLAH BUTT‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 3 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989L62 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989L62 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: fazl‑i‑Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989L62 (PLP) (SANAULLAH BUTT‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 3 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Petitioner in person. Ch. Fazl‑e‑Hussain for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Sh. Zahoor‑ul‑Haq for Respondent No.4. Date of hearing: 5th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975)‑‑ ‑‑S. 17‑‑Dismissal of revision in default‑‑Restoration‑‑Revision filed by petitioner before Authority was dismissed in default as neither petitioner nor his counsel appeared when case was called‑‑Petitioner, however, on same day and after about one hour filed application for restoration of case, but Authority without applying its mind to requirements of law as to existence of sufficient cause, dismissed application merely observing that there was no reason to restore revision as no one had appeared on earlier calls of the case‑‑Held, if after dismissal of a case in default, petitioner or his counsel, puts up appearance on same day during Court hours and shows sufficient cause for not being present when matter was called, it ought to be ordinarily restored‑‑Order of Authority thus suffered from vitiative infirmity‑‑Case was remanded. (b) Practice and procedure‑‑ ‑‑‑ Case ought not to be dismissed for default in early hours of the day‑‑Courts favour adjudication on merits rather than having a technical approach.
Judgment & Decree
The short point involved in this case is whether a petitioner or his counsel who turned up after the dismissal in default of a revision petition before the Federal Government against the order of the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, ought to be restored for sufficient cause shown.
2. The order impugned before this Court is that of the Additional Secretary, Government of Pakistan dated 29th of October, 1984, whereby it has been observed that the application for restoration had been submitted at 12‑15 in the afternoon whereas the case was called three times and was dismissed in default at about 10.30 a.m. The learned revisional authority merely held that there was no reason to restore it since neither the counsel nor the petitioner appeared at that time.
3. There is hardly any need for arguments because the consistent view of the Supreme Court as well as the High Court in such like matters is that if after the dismissal of a case in default, a petitioner A or his counsel put up appearance on the same day during Court hours and showed sufficient cause for not being present when the matter was called, it ought to be ordinarily restored.
4. There is no application of mind of the learned revisional authority to the requirements of law as to existence of sufficient cause because it had contented itself by merely observing that there is no reason to restore the revision since none‑ had appeared on earlier calls. The legal requirement of examining sufficiency of cause shown for the purposes of restoration has, therefore, escaped the B notice of the revisional authority. There is also no want of judicial authority for the view that a case ought not be dismissed for default in early hours of the day and that the Court favours adjudication on merits rather than technical approach. The reasons furnished by the petitioner for his non‑appearance in the earlier part of the day were not at all considered. This brings about a vitiative infirmity in the impugned proceedings and order. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for respondent No.4 is unable to support the impugned order.
5. For the reasons listed above, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to the revisional authority for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. H.B.T./S‑401/L Petition allowed/Case remanded.