P L D 1994 Karachi 315 (PLP)

Going through the impugned order, through which applicants' request for re‑admission of their civil anneal was disallowed, it is obvious that there was some misunderstanding about the number of defaults, which the applicants committed in payment of costs of service, the impression carried by the learned District Judge being that possibly there were three such defaults whereas there were only two, the first of which had been condoned and relevant to the second the learned counsel for the applicants did appear but belatedly at 11‑00 a.m. when the appeal had already been dismissed for non‑prosecution. The inference, therefore, is that in the event the learned counsel had been present in time possibly the default in payment of costs for the date of hearing on which the appeal was dismissed may have been condoned if just cause was shown. This, obviously, could not be done because appearance by counsel was somewhat belated on the fateful day. As to the reasons for non‑payment of costs, such reasons were disclosed in the application for restoration of the appeal, but were not even adverted to in‑ the impugned order. To be explicit, the reason was that the learned counsel for the appellants (applicants here) was incorrectly informed by a new entrant in his office that costs of process had been paid when actually the position was different. Delay in the arrival of the learned counsel on the date of appearance was also explained. The above are sufficient grounds for which this revision application may be allowed. However, it has not yet been admitted to regular hearing though the respondent has been noticed and is duly represented. No counter affidavit, controverting the foregoing, has been filed nor any is proposed to be submitted. In these circumstances, it will cause unnecessary delay if this revision application is first admitted and then put up for regular hearing after an indefinite period of time. In the interest of expeditious disposal and towards advancement of justice this Court is fully competent to admit and simultaneously allow a revision application, an appeal and even a Constitutional petition provided always that in the process no one is denied due right of hearing, which obviously is not the case here: Accordingly, I admit this civil revision application and, upon hearing the learned counsel, simultaneously allow it, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case for regular haring of the appeal by the learned District Judge. Notice of hearing of the remanded appeal is waived by Mr. S. Irtiza Hussain and parties would attend before the learned District Judge, Karachi Central, on 7‑5‑1994. However, because the respondent has been put to the inconvenience of defending this revision application for no fault of its own, the restoration is conditional upon payment of Rs.500 by way of costs through a proper challan by the applicants to the respondent on or before the date fixed for hearing upon remand of the matter. Civil revision allowed. AA./S‑1070/K Revision accepted.