Find a Lawyer

Revision Application No. 248 of 1980 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1573 of 1981, decided on 25th April, 1982.

---Ss. 115 & 151.‑Revision application, restoration of‑Applicant moving application for restoration of revision application dismissed for default‑Counsel filing personal affidavit, in support, stating therein he left chit in Court about his business in another Court and Copying Branch‑Respondent not disputing this factum‑‑‑Court has power to restore revision petition if sufficient cause shown and explanation given, acceptable.

Ghani' Sons Industries Ltd., Karachi v. Mirza 1khlague Ahmad P L D 1974 Kar. 339 ; Jan Muhammad v. Muhammad Asghar P L D 1981 S C 513 and Baboo v. Mst. Niaz Bibi P L D 1982 Lah. 192 ref.

Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Petitioner.

This revision application was dismissed in .default on 29‑4‑1981. The applicant moved an application for restoration supported by a personal affidavit of tine learned counsel for applicant in which the following averment has been made :‑

"that the date on which the above matter was fixed for regular hearing and was called out at 1‑20 p.m. I had gone to Copying Branch from the Court of Mr. Justice Ghaus Ali Shah where I was engaged in 14 cases and such intimation was left in this Court."

The respondent who has appeared in person has filed an affidavit in reply to the above application, though he has averred in his affidavit that the ground given by the learned counsel is not tangible, but at the same time be has not refuted the factum mentioned in the above‑quoted para. 1 of the affidavit of the learned counsel for the applicant. On the previous date when the above application came up for hearing, the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the restoration application is not competent in view of the case of Ghani Sons Industries Ltd., Karachi v. Mirza Ikhlaque Ahmad (P L D 1974 Kar. 339). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the above question. Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh has referred to the case of Jan Muhammad v. Muhammad Asghar (P L D 1981 S C 513), the case of Baboo v. Mst. Niaz Bibi (P L D 1982 Lah. 192). On the other hand the respondent has relied upon the above Karachi case.

2. In the above first case of the Supreme Court 1981 the relevant facts were that a revision petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court and restoration application was also dismissed on the ground that sufficient cause was not shown by the learned counsel for the applicant, though he had averred in his affidavit that he was busy in the Supreme Court. Against the above order of the learned Single Judge, the appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the learned Single Judge with the directions to re‑hear the application and to take into consideration the affidavits‑on‑record for the purpose of determining as to whether sufficient cause was shown for the restoration of the revision application.

3. Reverting to the Lahore case reported in 1982 it may be stated that the above case has been decided by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, in which inter alia the above Supreme Court case and the Karachi case of 1974 have been considered. The view of the learned Single Judge in the Karachi case of 1974 has been dissented from and the view found favour with the Supreme Court in the above case has been followed.

4. Referring to the Karachi case it may be observed that a learned Single Judge has in fact held that an application under section 151, C. P. C. for the restoration of revision petition in not comp; tent. However, in the above Supreme Court case no specific plea was raised that the restoration application in a revision petition is not competent but the Supreme Court proceeded on the assumption that such an application is competent. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has also held that a restora tion application in a revision petition is competent. I am also inclined to take the view that if sufficient cause is shown the Court has the power to restore even the revision petition. In this view of the matter the legally objection raised by the respondent is not sustainable.

5. As regards the merits of the application, it has been urged by the respondent that the learned counsel for the applicant was not entitled to give preference to a work in Copying Branch instead of attending this case. It may be observed that the learned counsel for the applicant had left a chit in this Court stating therein that he was busy in the Court of Mr. Justice Ghousal Ali Shah, which was located on the ground floor at the relevant rim and therefore, it is plausible that the learned counsel for the applicant might have gone to attend some work in the Copying Branch which is also located on the ground floor, in the annexe to the main building. Since the e factum that the learned counsel for the applicant had gone to the Copying Branch at the relevant time has not been disputed by the respondent expressly in the affidavit I am inclined to accept the above explanation subject to the payment of Rs. 300 as costs to the respondent. The revision application is restored on payment of cost of Rs. 300.

K. M. A. Revision application restored.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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