FATEH MUHAMMAD vs FATEH MUHAMMAD and others
This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, whereby a civil miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner for the restoration of a revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution was rejected. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient cause was shown for the restoration of the revision petition that had been dismissed due to the non-appearance of the petitioner and his counsel. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition lacks merit, noting that the petitioner failed to offer any explanation for neglecting to inquire about the case from his counsel for about six months, thereby establishing clear negligence on his part. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the impugned order of the High Court.
- Whether a revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution can be restored when the petitioner shows gross negligence and fails to inquire about the case for a prolonged period?
- Does an application for the restoration of a dismissed revision petition require a valid explanation for the absence of the party or counsel on the date of hearing?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment/order dated 28-1-2000 of the Lahore High Court through which civil miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner seeking restoration of the revision for non-prosecution, has been dismissed.
2. The revision petition was fixed for hearing on 11-6-1999 on which date neither the petitioner nor his learned counsel appeared and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. Application filed by the petitioner seeking restoration of the revision petition has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 28-1-2000, against which leave to appeal has been sought.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner when questioned admitted that there was nothing in the application as to why the petitioner did not inquire about the fate of the case from his learned counsel for about six months after the last date of hearing from which negligence on the part of the petitioner was fully established.
4. The judgment/order impugned in this petition does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- Mst. SIKANDAR JAN vs ABDUL RAZZAQ etc. 2012 PLJ Lahore 673
- Mst. Sikandar Jan vs Abdul Razzaq 2012 C.L.R. 594
- Mst. SIKANDAR JAN Versus ABDUL RAZZAQ 2012 MLD 812