| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2986 2024 SLD 2986 2024 PLD 588 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 423-L of 2018, decided on 4th March, 2024. (Against the Order dated 28.11.2017 passed by Lahore High Court on Diary No. 45031/2017 in C.R. No. 3054 of 2012). Date of hearing: 26th January, 2024.
PRESENT: QAZI FAEZ ISA, CJ, MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR AND MUSARRAT HILALI, JJ
Ch. Abdul Khaliq Thind, Advocate Supreme Court, Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record along with Khurram Musharaf Petitioner No.1(b) for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
Civil Petition No. 423-L of 2018, decided on 4th March, 2024. (Against the Order dated 28.11.2017 passed by Lahore High Court on Diary No. 45031/2017 in C.R. No. 3054 of 2012). Date of hearing: 26th January, 2024.
PRESENT: QAZI FAEZ ISA, CJ, MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR AND MUSARRAT HILALI, JJ
Ch. Abdul Khaliq Thind, Advocate Supreme Court, Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record along with Khurram Musharaf Petitioner No.1(b) for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
HAJI MUSHARRAF MAHMOOD KHAN (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS.---PETITIONER
VS
SARDARZADA ZAFAR ABBAS (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. AND OTHERS-- RESPONDENTS
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 115
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 181
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Scope---Suo motu jurisdiction---Revisional Court can even exercise its suomotu jurisdiction to ensure effective superintendence and visitorial powers to make sure the strict adherence to the safe administration of justice, and may correct any error unhindered by technicalities. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched. , Art. 181---Civil revision dismissed for non-prosecution---Restoration of---Limitation---Residuary Article 181 of First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908---In the present case civil revision was dismissed by the High Court due to lack of instructions with the rider that the petitioner may move an application within 60 days for resurrection of the case---When the application for revival of the proceedings was filed, the office had raised objection and the application was dismissed for the reasons that; (i) the revision petition was dismissed due to lack of instructions (from the client/petitioner) with the rider that the petitioner may apply for revival within 60 days, but the application was filed after about 18 months; (ii) it was the duty of the petitioner to be vigilant in pursuing his case and; (iii) the petitioner was obliged under the law to explain each and every day of the delay but he has miserably failed to do so---Validity---In the C.P.C., there is no specific section or order which applies to the restoration of revision application dismissed in default---In unison, no specific Article is mentioned in the Limitation Act, 1908 whereby any specific period of limitation is provided for applying for restoration of a revision application dismissed for non-prosecution---To address this situation, the legislature has provided a residuary Article 181 in the Limitation Act, 1908 which is meant for all applications for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the schedule or by Section 48 of the C.P.C., and within the province and under the purview of this Article 181, all such applications can be preferred within a period of 3 years when the right to apply accrues---While dismissing the case for…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492