HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION vs Mrs. SARWAR JEHAN

ORDER

1. The revision application was fixed before this Court on 26-5-1991 for regular hearing which was dismissed on that date for non-prosecution as the applicants and their counsel remained absent.

2. C.M.A. No. 1134/91 has been filed for restoration of Revision application and C.MA. No. 1133 of 1991 for condonation of delay in filing the former application as it, was filed after the expiry of thirty days. . The learned counsel for the applicants has contended that in the cause list of 26th May, 1991 his name was not correctly printed. His name is 'Mehmood lqbal' but in cause list it was published as 'Muhammad 1qbal' Because of this' mistake, he, ~ouid not notice the case in the cause list. The learned counsel has relied on the case of Munawar Baig v. Hassan Bibi 1981 SCM R 160. In the reported case the Advocate's full name was Abdul Majeed Khan . Lashari, but it was published in the cause list without his surname Lashari. The Advocate for such reason could not note the case in the cause list and therefore did not appear in the Court on the date of hearing. Consequently the matter was dismissed. His application for restoration was dismissed by the High Court. In the Petition filed before the Supreme Court, the order of dismissal was set aside holding that the omission of the full name of the advocate from the cause list constituted a sufficient cause for his absence on the date of hearing and that the learned Judge in the High-Court was in error in refusing to restore the writ petition for hearing on merits.

3. The learned Advocate for the -respondent stated that he does not oppose this application on merits, but however he opposed the same as it was riled after expiry of the limitation. According to the learned counsel Article 163 of Limitation Act 1908, will be applicable. Submission is misconceived. Article 163 is applicable to suits only.

4. Specific - provisions have been made for consequences of non--appearance of the plaintiff or appellant resulting into dismissal of the suit or the appeal, but so far as revision application is concerned, no such provision has been made. Order IX, Rule 4, C.P.C. Provides for restoration of the 'suit, dismissed under Rules 2 or 3 of the said order. Order IX Rule 9 provides for restoration of the suit, wholly or partly dismissed under Rule 8 of the said order. Order IX, Rule 13 provides for setting aside ex parte decrees. Order XLI, Rule 19 provides for restoration of appeals, dismissed under Rule 11(2) or 17 or 18 of the said Order. Articles 163 and 168 of Limitation Act, 1908 prescribe limitation for filing applications for restoration of suit, setting aside ex parte decree and readmission of appeal respectively. But no analogous provisions, for restoration of revision application riled under section 115, C.P.C. Have been specifically provided.

5. The contention of the learned counsel that period for submission of application for restoration of revision application would be governed by Article 163 of the Limitation Act is misconceived. The said Article specifically provides for limitation. For submission of application for restoration of suit.

6. The Limitation Act, 1908 does not prescribe any limitation for application for restoration of Revision Application and, therefore, residuary Article 181, which prescribes limitation for application for which no period of A limitation is provided elsewhere in the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908.

7. In the absence of specific provisions, the Court exercises B inherent jurisdiction under section 151, C.P.C. For restoration of revision. No limitation is prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1908 for submission of such application. Therefore, the residuary Article 181 will be applicable. Under this Article, the limitation prescribed is 3 years from the C date when the right to apply accrues. The learned counsel in this regard referred to the case of Umer Khan v. Wasim Raza and others (1990 M LD 1062).

8. 1, therfore, allow C.M.A. No.1134/91. The revision application is restored to its original number. It shall be fixed for regular hearing according to roster.

9. C.M.A. No.1133/91 is dismissed being superfluous.

10. A.A./H-317/K Revision restored.