IMAM BAKHSH vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MUZAFFARGARH and others
The applicant, Imam Bakhsh, filed two applications seeking the restoration of Civil Petitions Nos. 545-L of 1999 and 546-L of 1999, which had been dismissed for non-prosecution on November 30, 1999. The core legal question was whether the applications for restoration, which were filed on March 22, 2000, were maintainable given the significant delay in filing. The Court observed that the applications were barred by 73 days. Although the applicant claimed to have gained knowledge of the dismissal order approximately one month after it was passed, the timeline established that the applications were still filed well beyond the permissible period. Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide any valid grounds to justify the condonation of this delay. Consequently, the Court held that the applications were time-barred and dismissed them accordingly. The principle laid down is that applications for the restoration of petitions dismissed for non-prosecution must be filed within the prescribed limitation period, and in the absence of valid grounds for condonation, such applications are liable to be dismissed as time-barred.
- Can an application for restoration of a petition dismissed for non-prosecution be entertained if it is filed beyond the period of limitation without valid grounds for condonation?
- Is a delay of 73 days in filing an application for restoration of dismissed petitions excusable without sufficient cause?
QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---Through the abovementioned two applications the applicant Imam Bakhsh has sought restoration of Civil Petitions Nos.545-L of 1999 and 546-L of 1999 which were dismissed for non-prosecution on 30-11-1999.
2. Both the applications are barred by 73 days and no ground muchless valid has been set up for condonation of delay. The applicant stated at the bar that he had got knowledge of the order, dated 30-11-1999 after about a month of dismissal of the petitions for non-prosecution. This would mean that the petitioner had got knowledge of dismissal of his petitions for non-prosecution on 30-12-1999 but the applications were moved on 22-3-2000. Both the applications are, therefore, dismissed as barred by time.