KHAN MUHAMMAD and others vs Mst. ZAINAB BIBI through Legal Heirs and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' application for the restoration of a revision petition that had previously been dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether an application for restoration, which was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, could be entertained or condoned by the court in the absence of a formal application for condonation of delay. The petitioners argued that they were unaware of the dismissal until the respondents sought execution of the decree, and that their counsel had been misinformed by the court reader regarding the status of the case. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the application for restoration was admittedly time-barred. The Court held that in the absence of a formal application seeking condonation of delay under the relevant statutory provisions, the court lacks the authority to condone the delay. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming that procedural requirements regarding limitation must be strictly adhered to.
- Can a court condone a delay in filing an application for restoration of a revision petition if no formal application for condonation of delay has been filed?
- Is an application for restoration of a revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution subject to the law of limitation?
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 21-10- 1996 of the Lahore High Court through which application filed by the petitioners for restoration of their revision petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23-6-1996, has been dismissed as barred by time.
2. The revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed for non- prosecution on 23-6-1996.
Application for restoration of the same was filed on 20-10-1996 alleging that the petitioners came to know about the dismissal of the revision petition on 13-10-1996 when the respondents approached the Executing Court for execution of the decree against which the said revision petition was directed. The ground for seeking restoration of the revision petition was that on 23-3- 1996, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners when approached the Court, he was informed by the Reader that the case has not been taken up and the same had been adjourned to a date in office as left over case.
3. The application for restoration of the revision petition was admittedly barred by time. No application for condonation of delay was filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, therefore, the learned Single. Judge dismissed the said application as barred by time observing that in the absence of any application seeking condonation of delay, the same could not be condoned.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to persuade us that the impugned order suffers from any illegality. He frankly conceded that no application for seeking condonation of delay along with the application seeking restoration of the main petition had been filed.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no force which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Cited by 4 cases
- Muhammad Anwar (Decd.) through his LRs. etc vs Essa and others 2022 PSC 1394
- Muhammad Anwar (deed) through L.Rs. and others vs Essa and others 2022 PLD Supreme Court 716
- Dr. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus Dr. RIFFAT AYSHA ANIS 2007 SCMR 1748
- QAMAR-UL-ISLAM, ADVOCATE vs S.M. GHARIB NAWAZ DACCAWALA, ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 2002 MLD 1282