Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O. XLVII, r. 1-Review-Sole question for determination whether High Court's order dismissing review petition correct-Petitioners having in fact attempted to reargue revision-Review application held not permissible.-[Review]. ORDER FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-The facts giving rise to this petition are that a revision petition filed by the petitioners was posted for hearing before- a learned Single Judge in the Lahore High Court on 9-4-1975 but it was adjourned to 11-4-1975 for want of time. The petitioners did not appear on that date -and the revision petition was dismissed. This revision was directed against an order made by the trial Court refusing to restore the petitioners' pre-emption suit dismissed for default on the ground that restora­tion application was barred by time. An Additional District Judge bad affirmed that order in appeal. While dismissing the petitioners' revision, the High Court also affirmed the view that the petitioners' application for setting aside the order dismissing the suit, was barred by time. The petitioners then filed a review application in the High Court presumably to set aside the order dated 11-4-1975 on the ground that there was sufficient cause for their absence. They also sought to re-agitate the question that their application under Order IX, rule 2 for restoration of the suit was not barred by time. This review application was dismissed on 22-5-1975. The present leave petition was filed on 7-8-1975 and it is, therefore, obvious that in so far as the order dated 11.4-1975 is…

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