DUMAR COAL COMPANY vs AKBAR KHAN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed an appeal and upheld the Additional District Judge's order. The lower court had rejected the petitioner's application for the restoration of a previous application seeking to set aside the dismissal of their suit, which had been dismissed due to the petitioner's failure to attend the court on the date of hearing. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court properly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in upholding the dismissal of the restoration application. The Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment was passed in the legitimate exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by the High Court, involved no point of law, violated no principle of law, and warranted no interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed on its merits.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court exercised in refusing to restore a dismissed application?
- Does the dismissal of a suit for non-appearance give rise to a substantial point of law warranting leave to appeal?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Baluchistan High Court dated 10-11-1985 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner and thereby upholding the order of the Additional District Judge, Quetta by which petitioner's application for the restoration of their previous application was for setting aside the order of dismissal of a suit filed by them against the respondent due to their failure to attend the Court on the date of hearing.
2. After having gone through the record of the case in the light of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel in support of the petition we find that the impugned judgment has been passed in legitimate exercise of discretionary jurisdiction vested in the High Court, and on the facts and circumstances of the case interference by this Court would not be justified at all. No point of law is involved and by dismissing petitioner's application the High Court has also not violated any principle of law. In fact, the High Court has acted in full accord with the principles laid down in certain reported cases. There is therefore no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.