Messrs KHAN BROS. & Ca vs Mst. SHAHNAZ BEGUM and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendant against the dismissal of its civil revision by the High Court. The respondents' original suit was dismissed for default, and their initial application for restoration was also dismissed for non-prosecution. Subsequently, upon showing sufficient cause, the restoration application and the suit itself were restored. The petitioner's counsel challenged the credibility and correctness of the statement made by the respondents' counsel, Mr. Sana Ullah, Advocate, regarding his inability to appear on the date of default. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that Mr. Sana Ullah's statement, which had been subjected to cross-examination, suffered from no such infirmity that would warrant interference. Holding that the findings of the courts below were free from any legal error, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings regarding the sufficiency of cause for restoring a suit dismissed for default?
- Can a counsel's statement made under cross-examination regarding non-appearance be discredited without apparent infirmity?
- Is leave to appeal warranted against the High Court's dismissal of a civil revision upholding the restoration of a suit?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant, against the dismissal by the High Court of its Civil Revision.
2. ' Respondents' suit was dismissed for default and application for restoration was also dismissed for non-prosecution. Later on, sufficient cause having been shown, the restoration application was restored and thereafter the suit was also restored.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has attacked the statement of Mr. Sana Ullah, Advocate regarding his inability to appear in Court for the respondent/plaintiff on the day the suit was dismissed in default. He has tried to show that Mr. Sana Ullah made a false statement.
4. After hearing the learned counsel we are unable to agree with him. The statement of Mr. Sana Ullah who was cross-examined, does not suffter from any such infirmity so as to justify an adverse comments by this Court. The finding of the Courts below does not suffer from any other error, either. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.
5. ' Leave to .