2004 PLP 394 (SCMR)
Mst. RABIA BIBI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 394 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. RABIA BIBI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 394 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 394 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 394 (SCMR) (Mst. RABIA BIBI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shaukat Ali Mehr, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners
- Nemo for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 18h June, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 24‑4‑2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Miscellaneous No. 114‑C of 2002 and in Civil Revision No.392 of 1992). (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.115‑‑‑Dismissal of revision petition in default of appearance‑‑ Scope‑‑‑While exercising revisional jurisdiction, matters should not be dismissed in default ordinarily and in routine‑‑‑Court should be liberal in restoring matters, if so dismissed‑‑‑Principles. Exercise of revisional jurisdiction is a matter between superior and inferior Courts and superior Court has to look into the propriety of impugned order regardless of whether the action is taken on the information/application of somebody or superior Court exercises jurisdiction suo motu. This principle is invoked only to stress that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the matters should not be dismissed in default ordinarily and in routine. Once it has been so dismissed, the Courts should be liberal in restoring the matters. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.115‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Revision petition dismissed in default of appearance was restored on payment of costs‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Such order could not be taken an exception to, as parties would now have an occasion to be heard properly ‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the order dated 24‑4‑2002 of an Honourable Single Judge of Lahore High Court passed in Civil Miscellaneous No. 114‑C of 2000, whereby Civil Revision No.392 of 1992 having been dismissed in default on 1‑11‑2001, had been restored on payment of Rs.1,500 as costs.
2. It is not to be controverted that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is a matter between superior and inferior Courts and the superior Court has to look into the propriety of the impugned order regardless of whether the action is taken on the information/application of somebody or the superior Court exercises the jurisdiction suo motu. This principle is recalled only to stress that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction the matters should not be dismissed in default ordinarily and in routine.
3. Once it has been so dismissed, the Courts should be liberal in restoring the matters. The same has been resorted to in the instant case and that too, on payment of Rs.1,500 as costs. The order cannot be taken an exception to because now‑ the parties will have an occasion to be properly heard.
4. There being no material in the petition, it is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. S.A.K./R‑50/S. Leave refused.