ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Constt: Petition.No.S-1109 of 2009.
_________________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE
_________________________________________________________________
For hearing of main case.
Date of hearing : 29.11.2021
Date of order : 03.12.2021
Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Vinod Kumar G.Jessrani, Advocate for respondents.
= * = * = * = * = * =
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J;- The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant constitutional petition are that a revision application filed by the petitioners against the order of learned trial Court was dismissed on 24.06.1996, for non prosecution by learned revisional Court; it was restored on 18.04.1996; its restoration was recalled by learned revisional Court on the very same date on filing of objections to restoration application by other side; subsequently, the application so filed by the petitioners for restoration of revision application was dismissed on 02.09.1996, for non prosecution; its restoration was sought for by the petitioners by way of an application Under Section 151 CPC; it was dismissed in default on 15.08.1997; its restoration was sought for by the petitioners by way of filing another application Under Section 151 CPC; it was also dismissed by learned revisional Court vide order dated 28.05.2005, which is impugned by the petitioners before this Court.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the valuable rights of the petitioners are involved in the subject litigation; therefore, they could not have been non-suited on the basis of technicalities. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order with direction to learned revisional Court to proceed further in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the respondents by supporting the impugned order has sought for dismissal of the instant constitutional petition by contending that the law supports vigilant and not diligent. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Rai Muhammad Riaz (decd) through L.Rs and others Vs. Ejaz Ahmed and others (PLD 2021 SC-761).
I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
Apparently, the revision application after its disposal for non prosecution once was restored, subsequently on filing of objection by other side on restoration application; the order whereby it was restored was recalled by learned revisional Court obviously without providing fair chance of hearing to the petitioners, which appears to be surprising. The valuable rights of the petitioners are alleged to be involved in the subject litigation; therefore, they could hardly be non-suited from the litigation on the basis of technicalities; it would be contrary to the mandate contained by Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which prescribes fair trial to everyone for determination of his/their rights/obligations to civil/criminal litigation.
The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that matter, the suit was restored with condition of payment of cost, which was not fulfilled. It is why, it was dismissed again and its restoration was denied by learned trial Court. In the instant matter, the revision application was once restored without condition, and such restoration was recalled and then very restoration application together with ancillary applications was dismissed on the basis of technicalities.
In view of above, the impugned order is set aside with direction to learned revisional Court to proceed further in accordance with law.
The instant constitutional petition is disposed of accordingly, with no orders as to costs.
J U D G E