Law:

Section:

IMAM ALI G. KAZI, J: --This appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed to impugn the order dated 26-3-1984 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Nawabshah in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1978 (Mst. Sardaran Bibi and another v. Allahdino) whereby application filed by the appellant under Order XLI, Rule 19, Civil Procedure Code seeking restoration of their appeal dismissed for default was rejected on the ground of limitation.

2.  On 12-12-1981 the appeal filed by the appellant herein was fixed for hearing before the appellate Court. On that date their Advocate reported no instructions and the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. About five months after the dismissal of the said appeal an application for restoration of the appeal was filed on 13-5-1982 on the ground that Ghulam Mohammad, the attorney of the appellants was pursuing the appeal and he died on 15-4-1981. The appellants were unware of his death till April, 1982 and as they learnt of his death they filed their application for restoration of the appeal within prescribed time. The respondents opposed the application on the ground that the restoration application was filed beyond thirty days of the date of dismissal and was barred under Article 168 of the Limitation Act. The land Additional District Judge, Dadu heard the application and rejected it as according to him, Article 168 of the Limitation Act was attracted and the application was barred by that provision of law. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.

 3.  Mr. Jhamat Jethanand, the Advocate for the appellants contended that the appellants are the residents of Punjab and were pursuing their appeal through their duly constituted attorney who expired on 15-4-1981 while the appeal was dismissed about eight months after his death on 12-12-1981. The appellants were not aware of his death till April, 1982. Under the circumstances the appellant cannot be burdened with the knowledge that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 12-12-1981. According to him, residuary Article 181 and not Article 168 of the Limitation Act will apply and application for restoration of appeal in the circumstances of the present case although dismissal in default will lie under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his such contentions, he has relied on cases reported in 1982 CLC 264; PLD 1981 SC 21 and 1986 CLC 2643.