Taj Muhammad vs M/S. Orient Straw Board & Paper Mills, Kotri
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Sindh High Court, which refused to restore a civil revision petition that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in declining the restoration application filed after a delay of more than thirteen months. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the death of his counsel and his own retirement from service. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no illegality or material irregularity in refusing restoration. The Court observed that the petitioner had been lax, lethargic, and indifferent in pursuing his case, failing to keep track of proceedings for over a year. The key principle laid down is that a party who remains indifferent and fails to diligently pursue litigation is not entitled to the court's indulgence for restoration, particularly when the passage of time has allowed the dismissal order to attain finality, thereby creating a valuable right in favor of the successful party.
- Is a party entitled to the restoration of a civil revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution if they have remained indifferent and failed to track proceedings for over a year?
- Does a significant delay in filing an application for restoration of a dismissed petition justify a court's refusal to restore the matter?
- Can a court decline to restore a petition if the dismissal order has attained finality and created a vested right for the opposing party?
JUDGMENT RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against Sindh High Court order dated 29.3.2004 declining to restore civil revision dismissed on 31.1.2003 for non-prosecution.
2. The main ground which weighed with the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court for non- suiting the petitioner appears to be that though his counsel died in January, 2003 and he obtained retirement from Railway Service on 31.3.2003 he did not keep track of the proceedings by keeping away from the Court, lt was only on 25.2.2004 that an application for restoration of revision petition was moved before the High Court which has been declined.
3. After hearing Mr. Kishanchand, ASC for the petitioner we are convinced that by declining to restore the revision petition after a delay of more than 13 months High Court neither committed any illegality nor acted with material irregularity causing injustice to the petitioner. If the petitioner had chosen to remain lax, lethargic and indifferent he is not entitled to any indulgence of the Court in the matter of restoration as by passage of time the order has attained finality and a valuable right vests in the party successful at the litigation. We are supported in our view by the dictum laid down in the Allah Bachai and others v. Fida Hussain and others (2004 SCM R 615).
4. There is thus no ground for interference by this Court. Petition is accordingly dismissed.