MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and otherss vs Mst. NAJMA BIBI and others
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the procedural aspects of restoring civil revision petitions dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal questions address whether Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applies to applications for restoring civil revision petitions dismissed in default, given the absence of a specific limitation period in the Schedule or Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Furthermore, the Court examines whether inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can be invoked when no specific remedy exists for such dismissals, and whether the omission of a case from the High Court's cause list constitutes sufficient cause for restoration. The Court, noting a divergence in judicial opinion regarding the application of Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, determined that these significant and important questions require an authoritative judgment. Consequently, the petitions were converted into appeals and clubbed together for a final determination to resolve the existing legal ambiguity.
- Does Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to an application for the restoration of a civil revision petition dismissed in default?
- Can the Court invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to restore a civil revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Does the omission of a case from the High Court's cause list constitute sufficient cause for the restoration of a civil revision petition?
- Article 181, Limitation Act 1908
- Section 48, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. ' JAVED IQBAL; J.---Heard Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, learned Senior Advocate Supreme 'Court on behalf of petitioners and Mr.Mahmood Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents.
2. In the above captioned petitions a similar question of law is involved. After having scanned the entire record and perused the judgments impugned with care and caution we are inclined to grant leave, inter alias on the following points:--
(i) Whether the provisions as contained in Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 can be made applicable in case of an application moved for restoration of a civil revision petition which was dismissed in default as no specific period of limitation has been provided in the Schedule or in section 48 of C.P.C.?
(ii) Whether no remedy whatsoever is available against dismissal of a civil revision petition for non- prosecution and in such an eventuality can the Court invoke its inherent powers as conferred upon it under section 151, C.P.C.?
(iii) Whether omission of the case from the cause list circulated by the registry of the High Court does constitute sufficient cause for restoration of the civil revision petition?
(iv) Whether the divergence of opinion qua application of Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 in case Allah Bachai v. Fida Hussain 2004 SCM R 615, Muhammad Sadiq v. Bashiran PLD 2000 SC 820 have not created an anomalous situation justifying an authoritative judgment?
3. ' The above captioned petitions which are converted into appeal be clubbed together and fixed at some early date in view of the significant and important questions involved therein.
Cited by 6 cases
- GHULAM QADIR and others vs Sh. ABDUL WADOOD and others 2016 PLD Supreme Court 712
- GHULAM QADIR and others vs Sh. ABDUL WADOOD and others 2013 SCMR 167
- RASHEED HUSSAIN MALIK and another Civil Petition No,422-K of 2005 Civil 2008 SCMR 1027
- AMER BAKHT AZAM and 3 others vs COOPERATIVE MODEL TOWN SOCIETY 2007 PLD Lahore 636
- AMER BAKHT AZAM and 3 others vs CO-OPERATIVE MODEL TOWN SOCIETY 2008 PLJ Lahore 17
- (1) Ghulam Qadir, etc. (in C.A. 510/2012) (2) Ayas Khan. (in C.A. 934/2012) 2016 SCP 30