Sharif Ahmad vs Rashid Ahmad and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's review application. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the review application, particularly in light of the petitioner's failure to provide a date of knowledge regarding the dismissal of the case for non-prosecution. The Supreme Court examined the petitioner's reliance on precedents regarding restoration but found those authorities inapplicable to the present circumstances. The Court held that no case for interference was established, consequently dismissing the petition and refusing leave to appeal. In its reasoning, the Court reaffirmed the established legal principle that while cases where a revisional court assumes suo motu jurisdiction should not be dismissed for non-prosecution, this principle does not apply to the petitioner's specific situation where the necessary procedural diligence regarding the date of knowledge was absent. The judgment emphasizes the requirement for litigants to provide specific details when seeking restoration of cases dismissed for non-prosecution.
- Is a case dismissed for non-prosecution subject to restoration if the applicant fails to state the date of knowledge of the dismissal?
- Does the principle prohibiting dismissal for non-prosecution in suo motu revisional cases apply to all review applications?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be granted when the petitioner fails to demonstrate procedural diligence in a restoration application?
ORDER
YAHYA AFRIDI, CJ. Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby his review application has been dismissed.
2. At the very outset, we confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out whether any date of knowledge of case being dismissed for non-prosecution was stated in the application for restoration, the answer was in the negative; however, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgments reported as Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others (PLD 1970 SC 1), and Farman Ali v. Muhammad Yousaf Ali and another (PLD 1992 SC 330). We have gone through the said judgments and find that the same are not relevant to the instant case. Even otherwise, this Court has by now settled the principle that in cases where revisional court assumes suo motu jurisdiction, only such cases ought not to be dismissed for non- prosecution. No case for interference is made out. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.