INAYAT BIBI Versus REHANA KAUSAR

ORDER

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.--- The suit for specific performance though earlier dismissed for non-prosecution, was subsequently restored, whereafter it again was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner moved an application for restoration which was dismissed on 7.7.2005. The petitioner moved another application for restoration of the noted application on 8.10.2005, which has also been dismissed by an order of the learned Trial Court, which has been sustained throughout.

2. Heard. We find that the applications filed by the petitioner both were for restoration of the applications for restoration, therefore any view set out to the contrary by the Courts below is incorrect. Besides on 7.7.2005 the case was not fixed hearing, rather for the personal appearance of the petitioner. She could not appear on the said date on account of illness as explained in her application for restoration, thus in the circumstances the Court at the best could have taken action against the petitioner in terms of Order X, Rule 4, C.P.C., but this was not so done. However, the Court could not dismiss the suit for non-prosecution, therefore as the very order of dismissal was patently illegal, resultantly the same cannot sustain. Therefore, the application including the suit should have been restored to its original numbers when the application for restoration had been moved within a period of three months. Resultantly, in the circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders, restore the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner with the direction to the parties to appear before the learned District Judge on 22.3.2016 who shall mark the case to the court of competent jurisdiction, which (Court) shall decide the matter within a period of five months from the date of appearance under intimation to this Court. Any disregard of the above order by the learned Trial Court shall be considered to be disobedience of this Court's order. Disposed of accordingly.

MWA/I-11/SC Order accordingly.