2003 PLP 758 (SCMR)

(On Appeal from the judgment dated 2‑3‑1999 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan passed in Civil Revision No.349 of 1998). ‑‑‑‑O. XLI, R. 17‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑ Dismissal of appeal for non‑prosecution‑‑‑Indolent appellant‑‑‑Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was decreed in favour of appellant with direction to deposit decretal amount within one month‑‑ Appellant preferred appeal before Appellate Court and failed to deposit the decretal amount even in the period extended by Appellate Court‑‑ Appeal was dismissed for non‑prosecution and application for restoration of the appeal was also dismissed for non‑prosecution‑‑‑High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to restore the appeal ‑‑Validity‑‑‑Appellant had not only shown disregard to the initial as well as extended time frame fixed for depositing the decretal amount but also filed application for restoration of the application dismissed for non- prosecution beyond prescribed period of limitation‑‑‑Explanation for filing of delayed application for restoration lacked plausibility for want of proof‑‑‑Appellant remained indolent throughout in spite of the indulgence shown by the Appellate Court in extending the time‑‑ Supreme Court declined to further indulgence in the matter as by passage of time the suit stood dismissed and valuable rights had accrued to the respondents‑‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused. Ch. Inayatullah, Advocate 'Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th March, 2002. QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.‑‑‑ A suit for specific performance of a contract embodied in an agreement to sell was decreed by, the learned trial Court on 20‑1‑1994 with the condition that the plaintiff shall deposit an amount of Rs.96,000 within one month of the passing of the decree otherwise the suit would stand dismissed. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Multan on 22‑11‑1994 directed the petitioner to deposit the decretal amount before 15‑12‑1994 with the learned trial Court and to produce the receipt. The petitioner did not deposit the decretal amount during the extended period and also did not enter appearance when the appeal came up for hearing on 9‑1‑1995 with the result that the same was dismissed for non‑prosecution. Sometime thereafter he submitted an application for restoration of the appeal but that too was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 10‑3‑1996. He submitted another application for restoration of the application for restoration of the appeal but after a hot contest it was dismissed on 12‑3‑1998. The said order was challenged by him through a revision petition but the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan on 2‑1‑1999. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we have come to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned judgment does not warrant interference because the petitioner had not only shown disregard to the initial as well as the extended time frame fixed for depositing the decretal amount but also filed the application for restoration of the application dismissed for non‑prosecution beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The explanation that he had gone to Karachi where he had remained under treatment for six months having met with an accident lacks plausibility for want of proof. The petitioner remained indolent throughout in spite of the indulgence shown by the learned Appellate Court in extending time. No further indulgence can be shown as by passage of time the suit stands dismissed and valuable rights have accrued to the respondents. Consequently, this petition is dismissed and leave refused. Q.M.H./M‑443/S Petition dismissed.