1989 PLP 550 (SCMR)
Syed NAWAZISH ALI — Petitioner Versus Civil Petition No.1023 of 1983, decided on 14th September, 1988.
| Citation | 1989 PLP 550 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Syed NAWAZISH ALI — Petitioner Versus Civil Petition No.1023 of 1983, decided on 14th September, 1988. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 550 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 550 (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 550 (SCMR) (Syed NAWAZISH ALI — Petitioner Versus Civil Petition No.1023 of 1983, decided on 14th September, 1988.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th September, 1988.
- Two questions have been raised by the petitioner who himself is an Advocate; one of facts; (1), that there was no sufficient cause for restoration; and (2), that the application for restoration was time‑barred.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 5-6-1983 in W.P. No.2369 of 1983).
Arts.185(3) & 199--Respondents' suit for recovery of money, earlier dismissed for non-prosecution, was subsequently restored--Petitioner's revision against order of restoration as also his Constitutional petition having been dismissed, leave to appeal was sought by him--Cause for restoration of suit as shown from respondents' side was sufficient--Denial of relief by High Court on question of limitation, in its discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction does not merit interference by Supreme Court in circumstances of the case--Leave to appeal refused. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 14th September, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant, in a suit for recovery of a large sum of money by the respondents -plaintiffs, against the dismissal by the High Court of his writ petition. The respondents' suit was dismissed for non‑prosecution. The application for restoration of the suit was allowed and the suit was restored. The petitioner's revision before the District Judge and writ petition before the High Court were dismissed. Two questions have been raised by the petitioner who himself is an Advocate; one of facts; (1), that there was no sufficient cause for restoration; and (2), that the application for restoration was time‑barred. After hearing him, we do not agree that the cause for restoration shown from the respondents side in the circumstances of this case (when reliance can be placed on the conduct of the court as also the council involved) was not sufficient. . Regarding the question of limitation also the denial of the relief by the High Court in its discretionary writ jurisdiction in a case like the present one does not merit interference by this Court. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. A.A./N‑116/S Leave to appeal refused.