Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.IX, Rr.8 & 9---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 163 & 181---Dismissal of suit in default---Restoration---Suit filed by plaintiff was dismissed in default and application for restoration of suit filed by plaintiffs was also dismissed by Trial Court as time-barred, but in appeal filed by plaintiffs against order of Trial Court, Appellate Court below set aside order of Trial Court and allowed restoration of suit---Defendants had challenged order of Appellate Court below contending that application filed by plaintiffs for restoration of suit was to be governed by Art. 163 of Limitation Act, 1908 which provided thirty days for filing such application whereas application was filed by plaintiffs after seventy seven days from dismissal of suit---Defendants also alleged that application for restoration of suit having not been accompanied by an application for condonation of delay such application was not maintainable---Date on which suit was dismissed for non-prosecution having been given by Reader of the Court and not by Presiding Officer, such date could not be treated as a date of hearing within contemplation of O. IX, R.8, C.P.C.---Period of limitation for filing application for restoration of suit thus was to be determined in the light of Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908 which provided period of three years for filing application and not Art. 163 of that Act---Application for restoration of suit filed after seventy-seven days from dismissal of suit, therefore, was well within time---Even otherwise cause for non-appearance highlighted by plaintiffs in their application for restorations of suit being a "sufficient cause" within contemplation of O.IX, R.9, C.P.C.. suit was rightly restored---In absence of any delay in filing application for restoration of suit there was no need to file application for condonation of delay and delay was condonable without a formal application in view of fact that act of Court should prejudice no one. M. Shafique Shah and another v. Mst. Irshad Begum and 8 others 1981 CLC 369; Abdul Rahman and another v. Mukhtar Ahmad and another 1985 CLC 1072 and Muhammad Qasim and…