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.
Civil Revision No. 54 of 1981, decided on 15th January, 1983.
‑‑ O. IX, r. 13‑Restoration of suit‑Contention that diary of ' I. petitioner's counsel misplaced as such he missed case, when called on proper date‑Petitioner appearing as his own witness and admitting his appearance on every date of hearing‑Counsel neither appearing himself nor filing affidavit to support fact of loss of diary‑Conclusion of Courts below, that if diary of counsel lost, no reason to believe that petitioner not aware of next date of hearing, held, justified‑Petition dismissed.
Ghulam Muhammad Chabal for Petitioners.
M. Siddique Ch. for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 15th January, 1983,
The petitioners suit for declaration was dismissed for non‑prosecu tion on 25th September, 1977. The petitioners applied for restoration of the suit but the application was dismissed on 26th March, 1978. He challenged the orders in appeal but his application was dismissed on 17th April, 1980.
2. There is a concurrent finding of the two Courts that there was n cause for restoration of the suit. The case set up by the petitioners for restoration was that the diary maintained by his learned counsel have been misplaced and that the learned counsel missed the case when it was called on the proper date. This question was gone into by the trial. Court and Arif Ali one of the petitioners appeared as his own witness. He admitted in his cross‑examination that he appeared in the case .on every date of hearing. From this the learned trial Court concluded that even if the diary of the learned counsel was lost there is no reason to believe that Arif Ali was not aware of the next date of hearing. As regards the loss of the diary the learned counsel did not appear in evidence nor was any affidavit submitted on his behalf. The trial Court and subsequently appellate Court was, therefore, justified in holding that there was no cause for restoration of the suit. The petitioner has, therefore, no case in revision. It is dismissed with 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