Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL AZIZ VS Respondent: ABDUL HAMEED
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq Title: ABDUL AZIZ vs ABDUL HAMEED Case No.: Civil Revision No, 813 of 2002 Date of Judgment:2007-02-16 Reported As: 2007 YLR 3159 Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---For the purpose of this judgment reference to the detailed pleaded facts would not be necessary. Suffice it to say that a suit filed by the petitioner for possession of land purchased by the respondent by pre-emption was contested by him. Issues were framed on 21-6-2000. The case was adjourned on few occasions for recording of evidence of petitioner. On 10- 7-2001 the case was adjourned for 20-9-2001 for his evidence. On this date none of the parties appeared when the case was called twice. The learned Trial Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the suit under Order XVII, Rules 2 as well as 3 C.P.C. First appeal tiled by the petitioner was heard by the learned District Judge, Khushab, who allowed the same on 21-2-2002 and remanded the case back to the Trial Court for decision after recording evidence. 2. The learned counsel contends that the appeal was barred by time. According to him copy of the said order dated 20-9-2001 was applied for on 20-11-2001 and it was delivered on 22-11-2001 and the appeal was filed on 23-11-2001. The contention is that the time for filing the appeal has expired when the said application was filed. 3. The learned counsel for respondent, on the other hand, contends that the plea that the date was misunderstood to be 20-11-2001 has been accepted by the learned District Judge. Even otherwise none was present on 20-9-2001 and the only option with the learned Trial Court was to dismiss the suit for non-prosecution under Order IX, C.P.C. Further contends that apart from the said fact apparent on the face of the record the decree sheet was, itself, prepared after filing of appeal and as such the appeal was very much within time. 4. I have gone through the copies of record. I find that on 20-9-2001 none of the parties were present. This being so the suit could have been proceeded only under Order XVII, Rule 2, C.P.C. And
---
## Page 2
at the most it could have been dismissed for non-prosecution as none was present. Be that as it may I do find that the decree sheet, itself, prepared on 20-11-2001 as is apparent from certified copy available at pages 15 and 16 of the petition. The appeal filed on 23-11-2001 was, therefore, very much within time. In any event the order passed by the learned Trial Court was without jurisdiction. I am not, at all inclined to exercise revisional jurisdiction in this matter. The Civil Revision is dismissed without any orders as to costs.