| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLD 3567 |
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 15132 of 2024
Presented By: (Muzamil Akhtar Shabir) Judge
06.05.2026. C.M.Nos. 2920 and 2921 of 2026 Mr. Wazir Ali Khosa, Advocate for applicant-petitioner. Mr. Musleh-ud-Din Khan and Malik Muhammad Bakhsh Khakhi, AAGs. Rana Ghulam Hussain, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan.
W.P. No. 15132 of 2024
Presented By: (Muzamil Akhtar Shabir) Judge
06.05.2026. C.M.Nos. 2920 and 2921 of 2026 Mr. Wazir Ali Khosa, Advocate for applicant-petitioner. Mr. Musleh-ud-Din Khan and Malik Muhammad Bakhsh Khakhi, AAGs. Rana Ghulam Hussain, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan.
Abdul Samad.
VS
. District Judge, etc.
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: 151
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 5
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section: 199
Summary The High Court dismissed applications seeking restoration of a writ petition and condonation of delay after finding that the writ petition had never been dismissed for non-prosecution and was, in fact, still pending. The Court held that both the petitioner and his counsel acted negligently by filing restoration proceedings without first verifying the court record or order sheet. It reiterated that courts discourage frivolous and misconceived applications that waste judicial time and delay the administration of justice. Tagline A restoration application is not maintainable where the main case has never been dismissed; litigants must verify the court record before invoking judicial remedies. ORDER; The applicant, who is petitioner in the main petition, has filed the above mentioned two applications; first under Section 151 CPC for the restoration of the titled Writ Petition, which is claimed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.10.2025 by this Court and the accompanying application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, for condoning the delay in filing the afore-referred application for restoration of titled petition. The claim of the applicant is that the titled Writ Petition was fixed for hearing on 15th of October 2025, before this Court, when it was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is claimed that non-appearance of the petitioner before the Court was not intentional rather due to the reason that no message or intimation relating to fixation of case was received by him, resulting in dismissal of the titled Writ Petition. It is further claimed that on coming to know of the said dismissal, he has filed the instant application for restoration of the main case accompanied with application for condonation of delay in filing the same. Seeks order of this Court allowing these applications and by condoning the delay recalling and setting-aside of the order of dismissal of Writ Petition for non-prosecution and its restoration to original number and status. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner has been confronted with the fact that neither the titled Writ Petition was fixed for hearing on 15.10.2025 nor…