Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 255 of 1.981, decided on 29th November, 1981.

‑‑ O. XLI. r. 19‑Application for re‑admission of appeal dismiss ed in default‑Restoration sought on ground that petitioner's attorney was ill and Advocate busy in some other Court‑Particu lars of case or Court where Advocate remained busy not given nor affidavit of Advocate filed with application for restoration‑Held, after dismissal of his appeal applicant was required to be more diligent in prosecuting his application for re‑admission of appeal Additional District Judge within his competency to believe or not version given in supporting affidavit of applicant‑Interference declined in revisional jurisdiction.

Faizanul Haq for Applicant.

Date of hearing : 29th November, 1981.

This Revision is directed against the order dated lath August, 1981. passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Karachi, in Civil Appeal No. 203/1976.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the applicant filed the aforesaid appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. It seems that the above appeal was dismissed in default on 16th August, 1976. The applicant moved an application for readmis sion of the above appeal under Order XLI, rule 19, C. P. C. The above application was also dismissed in default on 12th August, 1978 for non -prosecution. The applicant thereafter filed an application for restoration of his application under Order XLI, rule 19, C. P. C. In .the supporting affidavit, it was averred that the applicant's attorney was ill and was confined to bed and the applicant's advocates was busy in some other Court. The above application was resisted by the respondent. The learned 5th Additional District Judge by his aforesaid order dated 13th August, 1981 dismissed the above application. The applicant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present Revision Application.

3. In support of the above Revision Application, it has. been urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that since the learned Additional District Judge has believed the illness of the applicant's attorney, be was bound to restore the application of the applicant under Order XLI, rule 19, C. p. C. and there was no need of filing of personal affidavit of the advocate.

In my view the above contention is devoid of any force. Since the applicant's above. appeal was dismissed in default on 16th August, 1976, the applicant was required to be more diligent in prosecuting his applica tion for re‑admission of the above appeal. In the supporting affidavit though it was stated that the applicant's advocate was busy in some other Courts, ‑but no particulars as to the Court or the names of the parties were given. If the advocate had not filed his personal affidavit, the least which was expected of the applicant, was to give full particulars of the case and the Courts in his application where his advocate was busy. In A my view it was within the competency of the learned Additional District Judge to believe or not to believe the version given in the supporting affidavit and on the basis of lack of particulars as to the Courts and the cases in which the applicant's advocate was busy, the learned Additional District Judge could have dismissed the applicant's above application for restoration of the application under Order XLI, rule 19, C. P. C. No interference is called for by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

The revision application is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

M. Y. M. Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.