Mst. FATIMA and another vs Mst. REHMAT MAI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendants against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the District Judge's order restoring an inheritance declaratory suit that was earlier dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question concerned the propriety of restoring a suit upon an application for restoration and condonation of delay, particularly relying on the testimony and affidavit of the plaintiff's counsel. The Supreme Court held that the reliance placed by the High Court on the counsel's testimony and affidavit was unexceptionable and that the concurrent findings of fact did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact regarding the restoration of a suit based on satisfactory explanation of absence, supported by counsel's testimony, warrant no interference under appellate jurisdiction.
- Whether the High Court's reliance on the testimony and affidavit of a party's counsel for restoring a suit dismissed for non-prosecution is unexceptionable?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the restoration of a suit be interfered with when they suffer from no legal infirmity?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants side in an inheritance declaratory suit, against the dismissal by the High Court of their Civil Revision. The respondent-plaintiffs suit was dismissed for non-prosecution due to her absence as also the absence of her counsel. Her application for restoration alongwith an application for condonation of delay filed before the trial Court, was dismissed. On respondent's appeal, the learned District Judge reversed the order and allowed the application for restoration of the suit. The petitioners' Civil Revision was dismissed by the High Court. They have now sought leave to appeal.
2. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the reliance by the High Court on the testimony of the counsel of the respondent as A.W. 4 and his affidavit, were unexceptionable. The findings of fact brought under challenge before us, did not suffer from any infirmity. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.