Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 1374 of 1985, decided on 9th July, 1985.

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--

---S. 115 and O. XVII, r. 2--Restoration of suit--Requirements of revisional jurisdiction--Concurrent findings of Courts below as to absence of sufficient cause for restoration of suit related to question of pure fact--No jurisdictional error in the nature of non-reading or misreading of evidence--Concurrent findings of Courts below, held, concluded matter and High Court could not interfere in revisional jurisdiction.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--

---O. XVII, r. 2--Dismissal of suit in default--Appropriate procedure- Suit having been adjourned on last date, provisions of 0, XVII, r.2, held, were applicable for dismissal of suit in circumstances.

(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--

---O. XVII, r. 3--Dismissal of suit--Plea that trial, Court should have acted under 0. XVII, r. 3, C.P.C. and should have decided case accordingly having not been raised in Courts below and being not question of law, held, could not be raised and given effect to in revisional jurisdiction.

Shahid Hussain Qadri for Petitioner.

Concurrent findings by the two Courts below as to the absence of sufficient cause for restoration of the petitioner's suit dismissed in default, relate to question of pure fact and really conclude this Civil Revision because they have not been shown to have resulted from any jurisdictional error of the nature of non-reading or misreading of evidence.

2. However without disputing the correctness of those findings learned counsel argues that instead of proceeding to dismiss the suit for default in appearance on 1-3-1972, trial Court should have acted under rule 3 of Order XVII of the C.P.C. This contention is not sustainable on the present record because it has not been shown that on the previous date time may have been granted to the petitioner to produce evidence. Rather, the trial Court's order itself shows that the suit was adjourned on the last date. Hence, Order XVII, rule 2 was the only appropriate provision to be applied. Moreover, the foregoing contention does not appear to have been raised in the Court below any since it does not raise a question of pure law, therefore, effect thereto, cannot be given in this Civil Revision. Contention is accordingly repelled.

3. There is no substance in the Civil Revision which is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

A. A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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