MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And Another vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court which refused to restore a revision petition dismissed in default on the ground that the restoration application was time-barred and lacked an application for condonation of delay. The core legal question was whether limitation for restoration runs from the date of the order or from the date of knowledge when counsel was not notified of the hearing. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that where parties or their counsel were not notified of the date of hearing, limitation starts from the date of knowledge, obviating the need for a separate condonation application. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the High Court to determine the factual merit of the assertion regarding lack of notice.
- Does limitation for restoring a revision petition dismissed in default start from the date of the order or the date of knowledge when counsel was not notified of the hearing?
- Is a separate application for condonation of delay required when a restoration application is filed within time from the date of knowledge of the dismissal?
- What is the appropriate course of action when an appellate court refuses restoration without considering whether proper notice of the hearing was served upon the parties or their counsel?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated, 22-4-1992 whereby restoration of a revision petition dismissed in default was refused on the ground that the application was the-barred and no application for condonation of delay had been filed.
2. Ex facie the application for restoration of the civil revision appeared to be barred by the but the explanation given for it was that the counsel of the parties had not been notified the date of hearing and instead mistakenly some other counsel had been so notified. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the decision of this Court in Sind Industrial Trading Estates v. West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (PLD 1991 SC 250), the limitation could start from the date of knowledge and not from the date of order. The application being within the from the date of knowledge, no application for condonation of delay was at all required.
3. In view of the law laid down by this Court notice had issued to the respondent why the petition be not converted into appeal and the case remanded to the High Court for deciding the question of proper service on merits.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we convert this petition into an appeal and allow the same as there was no material to rebut or doubt the assertion of the appellant that he and his counsel were not notified the date of hearing and that they came to know of it subsequently from which date the application was well within the. While accepting the appeal, we set aside the order impugned and remand the proceedings to the High Court for determining the factual merit of the assertion made in the application claiming restoration and passing consequential orders thereafter.