MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ and others vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision for non-prosecution, as well as subsequent restoration applications. The core legal question concerned whether sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay in seeking the restoration of a restoration application that lacked the requisite application under the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court was justified in dismissing the application for non-prosecution on the ground of limitation and found no material irregularity in the impugned order. Consequently, the Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, affirming that unexplained delays and procedural lapses in restoration applications do not warrant interference by the apex court.
- Whether an application for restoration of a dismissed civil revision barred by time can be entertained without an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act?
- Does the dismissal of a civil revision for non-prosecution and the subsequent refusal to restore it warrant interference by the Supreme Court when no material irregularity is shown?
- What constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing a restoration application?
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
1. ' SH. RIAZ AHMED, C.J.---Leave to appeal is sought against an order, dated 25-4-2001 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the Civil Revision of the petitioner for non prosecution.
2. ' Facts in brief giving rise to the institution of this petition for leave to appeal are that over a dispute of inheritance, suit filed by respondent was decreed in favour of respondent Muhammad Aslam and on appeal, the Appellate Court had decided that respondents and the petitioners were heirs of dec eased and were entitled to inherit the property in accordance' with their respective shares in "Shariat". The said order was challenged in the High Court by means of Civil Revision which was dismissed for non prosecution on 25-4-2001 and thus C.M.1/C of 2001 was filed for its restoration which too was dismissed on 26-10-2001 for want of prosecution. Order, dated 5-6-2002 clearly envisages that C.M.56/C of 2002 was filed to seek restoration of C.M.1/C of 2001 was barred by time and no sufficient cause had been shown to seek condonation of delay and further it was not accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Thus, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss C.M.56/C of 2002.
3. ' We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the order impugned. The order impugned hardly discloses any material irregularity warranting interference by this Court because in our view application of the petitioners was justifiably dismissed for non-prosecution on the ground of limitation. Resultantly, this petition stands dismissed and leave to appeal declined.