Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No. 501 of 1981, decided on 31st January, 1982.
‑‑R. 21‑Election petition, restoration of‑Petition dismissed for non prosecution‑Held, within inherent jurisdiction of Tribunal or Court to take up me matter again, if non‑appearance justified in circumstances of case‑Such authority vests in adjudicating body to determine matter on merits unless expressly taken away by statute.
Mst. Shahjahan Begum v. Mst. Shabbir Fatima and another P L D 1972 Lah. 546 and Muhammad Aslam Mirza v. Mst. Khurshid Begum P L D 1972 Lah. 603 ref.
Ejaz Baig Mirza for Petitioners.
A. A.‑G. for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3.
Muhammad Ashraf and Mian Abdul Sattar for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing: 31st January, 1982.
Respondent No. 2 had filed an election petition against the petitioners. The same came up for hearing before the Election Tribunal on 13th January, 1981 when it was dismissed in default. The counsel for the respondent No. 2, the election petitioner filed an application for restoration the same day saying that the case was fixed, at No. 50 and he was busy in other Courts. The application, after hearing both the parties was allowed by the learned Election Tribunal vide order dated 11th April, 1981. This is challenged by the petitioners through the aforetitled Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the Election Tribunal had no right to restore the election petition dismissed in default because he was not so authorised under any of the provisions of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979 and the C.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that it is within the jurisdiction of a Court or a Tribunal to restore a matter dismissed in default if the circumstances so justify. He has placed reliance on Mst. Shahjahan Begum v. Mst. Shabbir Fatima and another P L D 1972 I,ah, 546 and Muhammad Aslam Mirza v. Mst. Khurshid Begum P L D 1972 LA, 603.
4. We agree with the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that it is within the inherent jurisdiction of a Court or a Tribunal to take up the matter again, if it has been dismissed for non‑prosecution if the non appearance is justified in the circumstances of the case., The matter can be illustrated by means of a simple example. A case is called for. The party does not appear. It is dismissed in default. Soon thereafter the party appears and states that it stumbled on the way and was late only by a fraction of a minute. It will be open to the Court to say that it will recall its order of dismissal in default and hear the party. It cannot be said that the Court has no such power. Such as authority vests in an adjudicating body to determine the matter on merits. Unless it is expressly taken awe by statute, the Court or Tribunal will have power to do all that is necessary to do justice between the parties. The contention to the contrary of the learned counsel for the petitioners has no force or merit. In the present case, the learned Election Tribunal has allowed the restoration application in the circumstances of the case and he having jurisdiction, it cannot be said that it acted without lawful authority.
5. In view of what has been stated above, there is no force in the petition and the same‑ is, accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.
M. A. K. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer