Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 762 1982 SLD 762 1982 PLD 192
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1310-D of 1979, decided on 9th December, 1981
MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J
A. R. Shaukat for Petitioner. Laqa Haider Zaidi for
Respondent.

BABIIer

VS

Mst. NIAZ BIBI--Respondent

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- --- S. 115 read with O. IX, r. 9-Revision petition dismissed in default-Held, can be restored if sufficient cause shown for such default-Fact of counsel of petitioner being busy before Supreme Court on date of hearing of petition before High Court-Held, sufficient cause for absence before High Court.-[Messrs Ganisons Industries Ltd., Karachi v. Mirza Akhlaque Ahmed P L D 1974 Kar. 339 and A. Ra.ma­murthi 1yer and others v. T. A. Meenakshisundarammal and another A I R 1945 Mad. 103 dissented from. Municipal Committee Jhelum v. Maulvi Muhammad Shafi 19%1 S C M R 740 ; Jan Muhammad v. Muhammad Asghar P L D 1971 S C 513 ; Jiwani v. Bhagel Singh 97 P R 1907 and Syed 1qbql Hussain Shah v. Abdul Ghani and others P L D 1967 Lah 633 fol. Messrs Ganisons Industries Ltd., Karachi v. Mirza Akhlaque Ahmed P L D 1974 K4r. 339 and A. Ramamurthi 1yer and others v. T. A. Meenakshisundar ammal and another A I R (32) 1945 Mad. 103 dissented from. JUDGMENT A revision petition (C. R. No. 1310/13;79) filed by the petitioner, Babu, against the respondent, Mst. Niaz Bibi, was dismissed in default on 7th April, 1981, when none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner to pursue the petition. Mr. Laqa Haider Zaidi, learned counsel for the respondent, was, however, in attendance. On the same day, namely, 7th April, 1981, Mr. A. R. Shaukat, learned counsel for the petitioner, made an application for the restoration of civil revision which has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petition for restoration of the civil revision was not competent. He relied on Messrs Ganisons Industries Ltd., Karachi v. Mirza Akhlaque Ahmed (1) and A. Rama­murthi lyer and others v. T. A. Meenakshisundarammal and another (2) to support his contention. It was also urged by him that there was no sufficient cause for revival of the revision petition. (1) P L-V 1974 Kar. 339 (?) A I R 1945 Mad. 103 3., In reply, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a revision petition dismissed in default could be restored if sufficient cause was shown for the non-appearance of the petitioner. In this…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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