Haji MUSHARRAF MAHMOOD KHAN vs SARDARZADA ZAFAR ABBAS S — 2024 PLD 588 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Haji MUSHARRAF MAHMOOD KHAN VS SARDARZADA ZAFAR ABBAS S. 115---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched. , Art. 181---Civil revision dismissed for non-prosecution---Restoration of---Limitation---Residuary Article 181 of First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908---In the present case civil revision was dismissed by the High Court due to lack of instructions with the rider that the petitioner may move an application within 60 days for resurrection of the case---When the application for revival of the proceedings was filed, the office had raised objection and the application was dismissed for the reasons that; (i) the revision petition was dismissed due to lack of instructions (from the client/petitioner) with the rider that the petitioner may apply for revival within 60 days, but the application was filed after about 18 months; (ii) it was the duty of the petitioner to be vigilant in pursuing his case and; (iii) the petitioner was obliged under the law to explain each and every day of the delay but he has miserably failed to do so---Validity---In the C.P.C., there is no specific section or order which applies to the restoration of revision application dismissed in default---In unison, no specific Article is mentioned in the Limitation Act, 1908 whereby any specific period of limitation is provided for applying for restoration of a revision application dismissed for non-prosecution---To address this situation, the legislature has provided a residuary Article 181 in the Limitation Act, 1908 which is meant for all applications for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the schedule or by Section 48 of the C.P.C., and within the province and under the purview of this Article 181, all such applications can be preferred within a period of 3 years when the right to apply accrues---While dismissing the case for non-prosecution, the Court cannot fix any specific time or period for applying for restoration as was done by the High Court in this case, whereby a barrier of 60 days was fixed for filing of the restoration application---Such directions were contrary to the provisions of Limitation Act, 1908wherein the limitation period for applying for restoration of a revision petition or application is regulated and controlled by the Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Fixation of time or limitation of 60 days by the Court is tantamount to curtailing or restricting the statutory period of 3 years to only 60 days which was unwarranted and in excess of jurisdiction---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed; the impugned order passed by the High Court was set aside and the civil revision was restored with the direction that the High Court shall decide the civil revision on merits after issuing notice to the parties. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 588 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Haji MUSHARRAF MAHMOOD KHAN VS SARDARZADA ZAFAR ABBAS S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Scope---Suo motu jurisdiction---Revisional Court can even exercise its suomotu jurisdiction to ensure effective superintendence and visitorial powers to make sure the strict adherence to the safe administration of justice, and may correct any error unhindered by technicalities.

Haji MUSHARRAF MAHMOOD KHAN vs SARDARZADA ZAFAR ABBAS S — 2024 PLD 588 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD