Mst. RABIA BIBI and others vs GHULAM RASOOL and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had restored a Civil Revision petition previously dismissed in default upon the payment of costs. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether a High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, should adopt a strict approach regarding the dismissal of petitions in default, or whether a more liberal approach favoring restoration is appropriate. The Supreme Court held that revisional jurisdiction involves a relationship between superior and inferior courts, where the superior court must assess the propriety of impugned orders, regardless of whether the action is initiated by a party or taken suo motu. Consequently, the Court affirmed that matters in revisional jurisdiction should not be dismissed in default as a matter of routine. The Court established the principle that once a revision petition is dismissed in default, courts should exercise liberality in restoring such matters to ensure that parties are afforded a proper opportunity to be heard on the merits of their case.
- Should a High Court dismiss a civil revision petition in default as a matter of routine?
- Is a liberal approach required for the restoration of civil revision petitions dismissed in default?
- Does the exercise of revisional jurisdiction require the superior court to look into the propriety of the impugned order regardless of the parties' presence?
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the order dated 24-4- 2002 of an Honourable Single Judge of Lahore High Court passed in Civil Miscellaneous No,114-C of 2000, whereby Civil Revision No,392 of 1992 having been dismissed in default on -1-11-2001, had been restored on payment of Rs,1,500 as costs.
2. It is not to be controverted that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is a matter between superior and inferior Courts and the superior Court has to look into the propriety of the impugned order regardless of whether the action is taken on the information/application of somebody or the superior Court exercises the jurisdiction suomotu. This principle is recalled only to stress that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction the matters should not be dismissed in default ordinarily and in routine.
3. Once it has been so dismissed, the Courts should be liberal in B restoring the matters. The same has been resorted to in the instant case and that too, on payment of Rs,1,500 as costs. The order cannot be taken an exception to because now the parties will have an occasion to be properly heard.
4. There being no material in the petition, it is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 3 cases
- GHULAM QADIR and others vs Sh. ABDUL WADOOD and others 2016 PLD Supreme Court 712
- MOHARAM vs MUHAMMAD MOOSA and 4 others 2015 CLC 75
- (1) Ghulam Qadir, etc. (in C.A. 510/2012) (2) Ayas Khan. (in C.A. 934/2012) 2016 SCP 30