BUNDOO KHAN Versus KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
1. This is a Revision Application under Section 115, C.P.C. The, relevant, facts giving rise to this Revision Application are that the applicants‑plaintiffs fit. Suit No. 1860 of 1972 in the Civil Court, Karachi for declaration and injunction, which was decreed in favour of the applicants‑plaintiffs by Judgment/Decree dated 31‑5‑1979. The respondents‑defendants filed a Civil Appeal No.224/79 in District Court which came up for hearing in the III Court of Additional District Judge, Karachi, which was dismissed on 17‑11‑1982 for non‑prosecution but, however, the same was re‑admitted for hearing on 14‑12‑1982. The said appeal was adjourned from time to time, for one reason or the other, and lastly it came up for hearing on 25‑7‑1985 and was, again dismissed for non‑prosecution under Order 41, Rule 17, C.P.C. The respondents again made an application for re‑admission of the appeal on 28‑11‑1985 after about four months' time. The said appeal, in spite of objections filed by the applicant, was re‑admitted under Order 41, Rule 19, C.P.C. by the learned III Additional District Judge, Karachi by his order dated 4‑9‑1986, against which this Revision Application has been preferred.
2. The only point as urged by Mr. S.H.Fani is that the application for re admission of the appeal under Order 41, Rule 19 was barred by limitation. The learned counsel refers to Article 168 of the Limitation Act which is reproduced as under:
2. "168. For the re‑admission Thirty days The date of an appeal dismissed of the for want of prosecution dismissal."
3. Reliance is also placed on cases reported as Haji Ghulam Sarwar v. Daya Ram (1975 S C M R 199) and Gul Farid and 4 others v. Sultan (1985 M L D 1619), which go to support the submission of the learned counsel. Under Article 168 of the Limitation Act the time begins to run from the date of the dismissal of the Appeal and not from the date of the knowledge of the dismissal. The impugned order re‑admitting the appeal is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the appeal could not be re‑admitted after the expiry of time as prescribed under Article 168 of the Limitation Act.
4. The Revision Application, is therefore, accepted and the impugned order dated 1‑9‑1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge is set aside, but in the circumstances that the respondents have not turned up today, there will be not order as to costs.
5. M.Y.H/B‑74/K. Petition allowed.