KHAN MUHAMMAD and another vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had refused to restore a civil revision petition that was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioners, who were rival pre-emptors, had repeatedly failed to pursue their case, leading to multiple dismissals for default in the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to restore the civil revision, given the history of repeated defaults by the petitioners, warranted interference by the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no justification for granting leave to appeal, noting that the High Court had appropriately handled the restoration application in light of the petitioners' persistent failure to prosecute their case. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioners' case lacked merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the High Court's order and refused the leave to appeal, affirming the principle that repeated defaults in prosecution justify the refusal of restoration of a dismissed petition.
- Does the repeated failure to prosecute a civil revision petition justify the refusal of a restoration application?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an order refusing restoration of a petition dismissed for non-prosecution where the petitioner has repeatedly committed default?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--A civil revision filed by the petitioners' side (rival pre-emptors) was dismissed by the High Court for non-prosecution. A restoration application was also dismissed in default. However, on another application the restoration order having been passed, the petitioners again committed default; and, the case ended once more for non-prosecution. Again the petitioners submitted another restoration application which having been dismissed, leave to appeal has now been sought.
2. The learned Judge in the High Court has dealt with the question of restoration in the background of the repeated defaults in such a manner that we have not been able to find any justification for grant of leave to appeal. On merits also, the petitioners have a weak case.
3. ' Leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused.