IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, HACJ 
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN  
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN 
 
Civil Appeals No. 510, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006 
(Against the judgment dated 9.2.2005, 23.10.2009, 9.3.2012 and 1.9.2014 of the Lahore 
High Court Lahore, Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench, Peshawar High Court Peshawar 
and Lahore High Court Lahore passed in C.R. Nos.1274/1998, 87/1998, 91/2000 and 
405/2000, respectively) 
 
Ghulam Qadir, etc. 
 
 
 
 
(in C.A. 510/2012) 
 
Ayas Khan. 
 
 
 
 
 
(in C.A. 934/2012) 
 
Akhtar Pervez Sethi, etc. 
 
 
 
(in C.A. 1247/2014) 
 
Jan Muhammad through Attorney 
Muhammad Khan. 
 
 
 
 
(in C.A. 509/2006) 
Appellant(s) 
Versus 
Sh. Abdul Wadood, etc. 
 
 
 
(in C.A. 510/2012) 
 
Muslim Khan (decd.) through L.Rs., etc.  
(in C.A. 934/2012) 
 
Abdul Shakoor, etc. 
 
 
 
 
(in C.A. 1247/2014) 
 
Ghulam Ali (decd.) through L.Rs., etc. 
 
(in C.A. 509/2006) 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
 
In C.A. 510/2012:  
 
Mr. Mujeeb ur Rehman, ASC 
 
 
 
 
In C.A. 934/2012:  
 
Mr. Niaz Wali Khan, ASC 
 
In C.A. 1247/2014: 
 
Mr. Gulzarin Kiyani, Sr. ASC 
 
In C.A. 509/2006:  
 
Nemo 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
 
In C.A. 510/2012:  
 
Mr. Gulzarin Kiyani, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, ASC 
 
In C.A. 934/2012:  
 
Nemo 
 
In C.A. 1247/2014: 
 
Mr. Muhammad Bashir Malik, ASC 
 
In C.A. 509/2006:  
 
Ex-parte 
 
Amicus Curiae: 
 
 
Syed Najam-ul-Hassan Kazmi, Sr. ASC 
  
Date of Hearing:  
 
28.04.2016. 
… 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 2 - 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, ACJ.- These appeals, by leave of the 
Court, are being disposed of together as they involve the same legal 
question as to whether a civil revision filed under Section 115 of the Code 
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) once admitted to regular hearing can be 
dismissed for non-prosecution or not. 
 
Since the above proposition is common to all the matters, we intend 
to resolve the same before deciding the individual cases on their own 
merits.  
2. 
 
The learned counsel for the parties have argued extensively for 
and against the proposition; their arguments and law cited in support 
thereof are summarized herein below. Their pleas/counter-pleas and the 
submissions of the learned amicus curiae are reflected in the reasons of 
this opinion. 
The learned counsels who are against dismissal of a civil 
revision once it has been admitted to regular hearing have argued that the 
jurisdiction of the revisional court is supervisory in nature and when the 
court has once taken cognizance of an error of jurisdiction or material 
irregularity or illegality in the decision challenged in revision it becomes 
the beholden duty of the court to decide the matter on merits in order to 
correct such error. Reliance was placed upon the judgments reported as 
Muhammad Sadiq Vs. Mst. Bashiran and 9 others (PLD 2000 SC 820), 
Muhammad Yousaf and others Vs. Mst. Najma Bibi and others (PLD 
2006 SC 512), Rasheed Hussain Malik and another Vs. Mst. Hanifa 
Bai and others (2008 SCMR 1027) and Mandi Hassan alias Mehdi 
Hussain and another Vs. Muhammad Arif (PLD 2015 SC 137). 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 3 - 
 
3. 
 
The contentions of the learned counsel in favour of dismissal of 
a civil revision for non-prosecution even after it has been admitted regular 
hearing may be summarized as :-  
 
(i) 
A civil revision is dismissed for non-prosecution and/or 
restored under the inherent power of the court and not under a 
specific rule of the CPC; 
 
(ii) 
When the revisional jurisdiction is exercised at the behest of a 
party, the revisional proceedings are akin to any other 
adversarial litigation between the parties and when the 
instigator fails to pursue the matter, it has to be dismissed for 
non-prosecution. But where the court itself calls for the record 
to examine any error contemplated by Section 115 of the CPC 
the matter should be disposed of on merits and not on account 
of the non-appearance of the party(ies); 
 
(iii) 
The revisional court cannot be saddled with the duty to decide 
the matter on merits despite non-appearance of instigating 
party. An indolent/delinquent party should not be allowed a 
premium for his own acts/omissions to the prejudice of the 
other side.  
 
In support of the above, reliance was placed upon Abdul Rashid Vs. Mst. 
Saeeda Begum and another (1994 SCMR 1888), V.R. Mall Vs. Sh. 
Muhammad Yusuf and another (PLD 1975 Lah 825), Shankar 
Ramchandra Abhyankar Vs. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat (AIR 1970 SC 
1) and Dhondiba Appasaheb and another Vs. Wasudeo Anant Sherlekar 
and another (AIR 1957 Nag 83).  
4. 
 
The crux of the arguments of the learned amicus curiae was 
that there cannot be an absolute rule that a revision petition can or 
cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, instead it would depend on the 
facts and circumstances of each case. He argued that as there is no 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 4 - 
 
corresponding provision to Order 41 Rule 9 of the CPC (admission of an appeal) 
in terms of admission of a civil revision, therefore mere admission does 
not necessarily imply that the revisional court has decided to examine and 
rectify an error in the impugned judgment/order. But where the court 
after examining the record opines in its admitting note that there is a 
prima facie case for exercise of revisional powers then the court should 
decide the case on merits rather than disposing of the same for non-
prosecution. He relied upon the cases reported as Jan Muhammad Vs. 
Muhammad Asghar (PLD 1981 SC 513), Babii Vs. Mst. Niaz Bibi (PLD 
1982 Lah 192), Umar Khan Vs. Nasim Raza and others (1990 MLD 
1062), British India Navigation Company and another Vs. National 
Security Insurance Company Ltd. (1985 CLC 1799), Muhammad Arab 
and 2 others Vs. Jaffery Muhammad Hassan (1983 CLC 335), Farman 
Ali Vs. Muhammad Yousuf Ali (1990 CLC 1936), Muhammad Suleman 
Vs. Wilayatullah Khan and 2 others (1990 CLC 110), S. M. Abdullah & 
Sons Vs. Pakistan Mercantile Corporation Ltd. & another (PLJ 1977 
Kar 190), Musharraf Sultana Vs. Fazal Hussain and 9 others (1992 
CLC 1394), Abdul Rashid’s case (supra), Province of Punjab through 
District Officer Revenue, Rawalpindi and others Vs. Muhammad 
Sarwar (2014 SCMR 1358), Hafeez Ahmad and others Vs. Civil Judge, 
Lahore and others (PLD 2012 SC 400), Mandi Hassan’s case (supra), 
Federal Government of Pakistan and another Vs. Khurshid Zaman 
Khan and others (1999 SCMR 1007), Muhammad Swaleh and another 
Vs. Messrs United Grain & Fodder Agencies (PLD 1964 SC 97), Khan 
Bahadur’s case (supra), Muhammad Sadiq’s case (supra), Mst. Rabia Bibi 
and others Vs. Ghulam Rasool and others (2004 SCMR 394), Farzand 
Ali and another Vs. Muhammad Rafique (2013 CLC 976), Government 
of NWFP through Chief Secretary and 3 others Vs. Abdul Malik (1994 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 5 - 
 
SCMR 833), Noor Akbar through Sardaran Mai and others Vs. Mst. 
Gullan Bibi (2005 SCMR 733), Hakeem Abdul Wahab Shirazi Vs. Tariq 
Hussain and 2 others (1989 SCMR 699), Hisaria Plastic Products, 
Kanpur Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow (AIR 1982 All 
185) and Jaswinder Kaur and others Vs. Jatinder Pal Singh etc. (58 
(1995) DLT 155). 
5. 
 
Before proceeding further to examine the proposition we find it 
expedient to reproduce the provisions of Section 115 of the CPC which 
read as follows:- 
 
“115. Revision.—(1) The High Court may call for the 
record of any case which has been decided by any 
Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no 
appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court 
appears— 
(a) 
to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it 
by law, or 
(b) 
to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so 
vested, or 
(c) 
to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction 
illegally or with material irregularity, 
the High Court may make such order in the case as it 
thinks fit. 
 
 
Provided that, where a person makes an 
application under this sub-section, he shall, in support 
of such application, furnish copies of the pleadings, 
documents and order of the subordinate Court, and the 
High Court shall, except for reasons to be recorded, 
dispose of such application without calling for the 
record of the subordinate Court, 
 
 
Provided that such application shall be made 
within ninety days of the decision of the Subordinate 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 6 - 
 
Court which shall provide a copy of such decision 
within three days thereof, and the High Court shall 
dispose of such application within three months. 
 
(2) 
The District Court may exercise the powers 
conferred on the High Court by sub-section (1) in 
respect of any case decided by a Court subordinate to 
such District Court in which no appeal lies and the 
amount or value of the subject-matter whereof does not 
exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of the 
District Court. 
 
(3) 
If any application under sub-section (1) in 
respect of a case within the competence of the District 
Court has been made either to the High Court or the 
District Court, no further such application shall be 
made to either of them. 
 
(4)      No proceedings in revision shall be entertained 
by the High Court against an order made under sub-
section (2) by the District Court.” 
 
6. 
 
A comparison of appeals and revisions will serve to show why 
civil revisions can be dismissed for non-prosecution even after being 
admitted to regular hearing. They are simply two types of remedies 
available to persons aggrieved of a judgment/order. An appeal is the 
recourse adopted by a person to a superior court vested with the 
jurisdiction to reconsider a decision of a subordinate court, with the aim 
of attaining a reversal/modification of such decision. An appeal is not 
merely a matter of procedure but a substantive right. It is the 
continuation of a suit and during appellate proceedings the entire matter 
stands reopened. The jurisdiction of an appellate court can be invoked by 
a person who believes that the subordinate court has erred in law or in 
fact whilst passing the judgment/order under appeal. On the other hand a 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 7 - 
 
revision also involves an exercise of reconsideration/re-examination of the 
judgment/order of a subordinate court but only to the extent that it falls 
squarely within the parameters of Section 115 of the CPC. Although the 
matter of revision is not a mere privilege afforded to the aggrieved person 
but also a right this revisional power remains discretionary. The function 
of the revisional court is to ensure the proper administration of justice 
through the proper exercise of jurisdiction, procedural accuracy, 
correctness of the decision and legality thereof by the subordinate court. If 
the revisional court is satisfied that the subordinate court has not erred in 
this regard and the decision is sound in law, then it will not reverse or 
modify the decision solely on the basis that the subordinate court could 
have reached a different conclusion on merits.  
7. 
 
The scope of an appeal is much wider and being available as of 
right, it stands on a higher pedestal than a revision petition. How then is 
it conceivable that an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution even 
after being admitted to regular hearing, but not a revision, as contended 
by the learned counsels advocating against such dismissal(s) of revision 
petitions? We are not persuaded by the argument that because the 
jurisdiction exercised under Section 115 of the CPC is supervisory, 
therefore once the (revision) petitioner has brought the matter to the notice 
of the court and it has been admitted to regular hearing, it is thereafter 
between the superior court and the subordinate court, and the petitioner 
has no role to play whatsoever. In fact, the admission of a civil revision 
petition is analogous to a leave granting order of this Court which means 
that there is a point(s) which needs consideration and if the appellant 
does not appear after leave is granted, it (appeal) can be dismissed for non-
prosecution and not necessarily on merits. The same reasoning applies to 
civil revisions. Supervisory jurisdiction does not mean that the revisional 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 8 - 
 
court cannot dismiss a civil revision for non-prosecution. For that matter, 
the appellate jurisdiction also forms part of the supervisory jurisdiction of 
the court but it is not the case that appeals cannot be dismissed for non-
prosecution. Order XLI Rule 17 allows the appellate court to dismiss an 
appeal for non-prosecution and Rule 19 of the same order provides for re-
admission of an appeal dismissed under Rule 17 ibid subject to the 
appellant showing “sufficient cause” for non-appearance. There are no 
corresponding provisions regarding civil revisions. Nonetheless there is no 
bar whatsoever contained in the positive law, i.e. CPC, preventing the 
revisional court from dismissing a civil revision for non-prosecution. The 
revisional court can regulate admission, dismissal for non-prosecution 
and restoration thereof in the same manner as the trial (see Order IX Rules 8 
and 9 of the CPC which provides for dismissal for non-prosecution and restoration thereof, 
respectively) and appellate courts do, by virtue of its (revisional court) inherent 
powers under Section 151 of the CPC, as has been held by this Court in 
numerous judgments, including Mandi Hassan’s case (supra) and Karamat 
Hussain and others Vs. Muhammad Zaman and others (PLD 1987 SC 
139). Even otherwise, as held in Abdul Rashid’s case (supra), as per 
Section 141 of the CPC which provides that “the procedure provided in this 
Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all 
proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction”, the revisional court can follow the 
procedure(s) provided in Order IX, Rules 8 and 9 ibid which pertain to 
(dismissal for non-prosecution and restoration of) suits, for the regulation of its own 
revisional jurisdiction. 
8. 
 
As held in various judgments of this Court, there are two 
aspects to the jurisdiction of the revisional court, firstly, where the 
revisional court itself takes cognizance of a matter while exercising its suo 
motu powers under Section 115(1) of the CPC, and secondly, where a 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 9 - 
 
person brings the matter to the notice of the revisional court under the 
first proviso to Section 115(1) ibid. This bifurcation is significant. The 
matter is only between the revisional court and the subordinate court 
when the court itself invokes its revisional jurisdiction. However in the 
second instance, it is essentially adversarial litigation and in that 
eventuality, although the court is still acting in its supervisory 
jurisdiction, the revision can certainly be dismissed for non-prosecution. 
To hold otherwise would be incorrect for several reasons. Firstly, it would 
lead to the absurd situation where a person having once invoked the 
revisional jurisdiction of the court by filing a civil revision subsequently 
admitted to regular hearing, would be unable to withdraw such revision. 
Besides, it would negate the very purpose and mandate of the first proviso 
to Section 115(1) of the CPC under which any person can file a revision 
application. On the basis of this reasoning, revisional courts would not be 
able to dismiss revision petitions rendered infructuous in light of a 
compromise entered into between the parties. Secondly, such an 
interpretation presumes the provisions of Section 115 of the CPC, which 
employ the word “may”, are mandatory thereby reading into the statute 
something which is not there which (exercise) in turn is impermissible. 
Thirdly, it would render superfluous the centuries-tested legal maxim 
vigilantibus non dormientibus subvenit lex, meaning that law aids the 
vigilant, not the indolent. The revisional court should only exercise its 
discretion in favour of those who conscientiously pursue their rights and 
not those who sleep over them which conduct would indubitably disentitle 
such persons to discretionary relief. The revisional court should not be 
compelled to decide a civil revision on merits in the absence of either 
party(ies) just because it has been admitted to regular hearing. The court 
should not be rendered a slave to a person who files a revision petition 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 10 - 
 
and subsequently chooses not to appear before the revisional court due to 
disinterest or ignorance/indolence, and neither should such person be 
awarded a premium/privilege in this regard, as this would result in 
(possible) injustice to the contesting party. Adopting such a course would 
inevitably result in an undesirable increase in the caseload of the 
(overburdened) courts as numerous revision petitions would remain pending. 
The courts must consider the competing interests of both parties in the 
light of the principles of proportionality and balancing. Dismissing a 
revision petition due to non-appearance of the petitioner(s) is a clear 
manifestation of the act of balancing by the revisional court in 
performance of its judicial and discretionary functions. The dismissal can 
always be challenged by the petitioner subject to him establishing 
“sufficient cause” for his (or his counsel’s) non-appearance on the date his 
case was dismissed for non-prosecution. The revisional court in exercise 
of its inherent jurisdiction may restore the petition. 
 
9. 
 
We now attend to the case law which the learned counsel 
stated to be directly on point. In Muhammad Sadiq’s case (supra) while 
refusing leave to appeal this Court held as under:- 
 
“5. At the very outset it may be observed that 
dismissal of a civil revision after its admission by 
the Court seized with it for non-prosecution is not 
legally 
well-recognized 
for 
the 
reason 
that 
jurisdiction of a revisional Court under section 115, 
C.P.C. is invoked by an aggrieved person to point out 
illegalities or irregularities or the jurisdictional defects 
in the proceedings and the orders passed by the 
subordinate forums. Therefore, on entertaining a 
revision petition, Court exercises its supervisory 
jurisdiction to satisfy itself as to whether jurisdiction 
has been exercised properly and whether proceedings 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 11 - 
 
of the subordinate Courts do suffer or not from any 
illegality or irregularity. In other words, after filing a 
revision, matter rests between the revisional and 
subordinate Courts. To substantiate this argument 
reference may be made to Naoomal Tourmal v. 
Tarachand Sobharaj and another AIR 1933 Sindh 200. 
Thus is advised that the Court after having 
entertained a civil revision instead of dismissing 
it in default, may make efforts to dispose it of in 
accordance with the parameters laid down by 
section 115, C.P.C.” 
(Emphasis supplied) 
 
Muhammad Yousaf’s case (supra) happens to be the leave granting order 
dated 29.3.2006 in Civil Appeal No.509/2006. The case of Rasheed 
Hussain (supra) is also a leave granting order. In light of the dictum laid 
down in the judgments reported as Muhammad Tariq Badr and another 
Vs. National Bank of Pakistan and others (2013 SCMR 314) and Haji 
Farman Ullah Vs. Latif-ur-Rehman (2015 SCMR 1708), the noted cases 
[Muhammad Sadiq (supra), Muhammad Yousaf (supra) and Rasheed Hussain (supra)] are not 
the law enunciated by this Court and hence do not serve as precedent. 
Nevertheless, in light of our findings in the earlier part of this opinion, we 
do not find Muhammad Sadiq’s case to be good law to the extent that it 
holds that a civil revision cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution and 
should instead be decided on merit, as it leaves absolutely no room for the 
revisional court to exercise its discretionary powers rendering them 
(discretionary powers) nugatory and redundant. 
10.  
In Khan Bahadur’s case (supra) cited by the learned amicus, this 
Court held as under:- 
 
“The mention of Khan Bahadur who was allegedly 
dead at the time of institution of revision but admittedly 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 12 - 
 
alive at the time of the announcement of the judgment 
of the appellate Court, impugned before the High 
Court, was apparently a bona fide mistake and unless 
the rigour of procedural law had prevented it, the 
High Court was required to dispose of the same on 
merits. There is no dearth of authorities on this 
proposition that law requires decision of disputes on 
merits and technicalities have to be avoided which 
hamper justice so far as possible.” 
(Emphasis supplied) 
 
The issue involved in the judgment ibid was that a revision petition filed 
against a deceased person (who was alive at the time of the decision of the appellate 
court) was a bona fide mistake and thus, with no procedural law 
standing in the way of the revisional court, the court should have 
disposed of the revision petition on merits. However the precise 
proposition as to whether a civil revision can be dismissed for non-
prosecution once it has been admitted to regular hearing was neither an 
issue nor a moot point in Khan Bahadur’s case (supra), and it is not the 
ratio of the said judgment that all of the procedural law under the CPC 
should not be followed in letter and spirit. Be that as it may, delinquent 
and indolent persons are in any eventuality disentitled to any 
favourable discretion to the prejudice and detriment of the opposite 
party. Therefore we do not find that the said judgment comes in the way 
of the proposition involved in the instant matter. 
11. 
If the admission of a revision petition for regular hearing is not 
reason enough to save it from dismissal for non-prosecution then the 
question that arises is, where is the line in the sand to be drawn? In our 
candid view, the revisional court is not to dismiss a revision petition for 
non-prosecution but to decide it on merits only where the court has taken 
cognizance of the matter of its own, generally called its suo motu powers. 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 13 - 
 
When the revisional court decides to take up a matter suo motu, it should 
have necessarily done so by a conscious application of judicial mind and a 
thorough examination of the record. Where the revisional court has taken 
up the matter at the behest of a person, the court has the power to 
dismiss the civil revision for non-prosecution even after it has been 
admitted to regular hearing, and is not bound to decide the same on 
merits. 
12.  
Having resolved the proposition at hand, we proceed to decide 
each case on its own merits. 
 
Civil Appeal No.510/2012 
13.  
The relevant facts are that the appellants filed a civil revision 
petition before the learned High Court in terms of Section 115 of the CPC 
which was admitted to regular hearing on 21.1.2000. The revision petition 
was dismissed for non-prosecution on 9.6.2000. The appellants filed an 
application for restoration (C.M. No.1212-C/2000) and the civil revision was 
restored on 11.4.2001. The civil revision was again dismissed for non-
prosecution on 23.9.2003. The appellants moved another application for 
restoration (C.M. No.588/C/2003) on 26.9.2003 which was also dismissed for 
non-prosecution on 16.6.2004. Thereafter the appellants filed an 
application for restoration of the noted application for restoration (C.M. 
No.489/2007) along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 
1908 (Limitation Act) read with Section 151 of the CPC for condonation of 
delay (C.M. No.490/2007) on 15.11.2007, which were both initially allowed and 
C.M. No.588/C/2003 was restored vide order dated 1.4.2008 which was 
challenged by the respondents before his Court (through Civil Appeal 
No.1514/2008). This Court vide order dated 18.6.2009 set aside the order 
dated 1.4.2008 and remanded the matter back to the High Court for 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 14 - 
 
decision afresh on C.Ms. No.489 and 490/2007. The learned High Court 
vide impugned judgment dismissed the two applications on the grounds 
that C.M. No.588/C/2003 for restoration of the civil revision was rightly 
dismissed for non-prosecution due to the negligence/indolence of the 
revision petitioners (instant appellants), and that C.M. No.489/2007 for 
restoration of the restoration application (C.M. No.588/C/2003) was moved 
beyond the limitation period of three years prescribed by Article 181 of the 
Limitation Act and that C.M. No.490/2007 did not establish any sufficient 
cause for condonation of delay. Aggrieved, the appellants challenged the 
order of the revisional court before this Court and leave was granted vide 
order dated 30.5.2012 in the following terms:- 
 
“i)  
whether a revision petition could be 
dismissed for non-prosecution once it has been 
admitted for regular hearing ? 
ii)  
whether a revision petition dismissed for 
non-prosecution could be restored by invoking inherent 
powers of the Court ? 
iii)  
whether exercise of inherent powers of the 
Court could be circumscribed by the provisions of the 
Limitation Act ? 
iv)  
whether an application seeking restoration 
of a revision petition would also be regulated by 
inherent powers of the Court and not Article 181 of the 
Limitation Act, if and when is dismissed non-
prosecution ? 
v)  
whether dismissal of a revision petition and 
that of an application for its restoration can be treated 
alike under any interpretation of law and procedure ? 
vi)  
whether limitation in such cases can be 
considered as a technicality of mere form ?” 
 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 15 - 
 
14.  
Heard. After being admitted to regular hearing, the revision 
petition of the appellants was dismissed twice for non-prosecution once on 
9.6.2000 and then on 23.9.2003. Despite the fact that the name of the 
counsel of the revision petitioners (instant appellants) appeared in the cause 
list of the court, he did not appear, and neither did the appellants nor 
anyone on their behalf and to this extent the learned High Court 
committed no illegality in dismissing the civil revision for non-prosecution. 
Furthermore, C.M. No.588/C/2003 for restoration of the civil revision (after 
it was dismissed for non-prosecution for the second time on 23.9.2003) was also dismissed 
for non-prosecution. Not only that, C.M. No.489/2007 for restoration of 
C.M. No.588/C/2003 was barred by about 152 days as it was filed beyond 
the limitation period of three years prescribed by Article 181 of the 
Limitation Act, and no ground except that the delay was unintentional has 
been pleaded in the application for condonation of delay which as per the 
settled law does not constitute a “sufficient cause” within the purview of 
Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The above facts clearly reflect the 
appellants’ conduct which smacks of sheer negligence/indolence, 
disentitling him to any discretionary relief. Therefore, the learned High 
Court rightly dismissed the civil revision for non-prosecution and 
thereafter through the impugned judgment has rightly dismissed the 
application for condonation of delay and the application for restoration of 
the application for restoration of the civil revision. In light of the above, 
this appeal is dismissed. Though the learned counsel has only confined 
himself to the first point and not pressed the other points on which leave 
was granted, we find it appropriate to briefly express our views on such 
points as well. In this context we find that as there are no specific 
provisions in the CPC for the dismissal and for the restoration of a civil 
revision, therefore, the same (civil revision) can both be dismissed and 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 16 - 
 
restored by the court while exercising its inherent powers and resort may 
also be made to Section 107 of the CPC. As there is no specific article of 
the Limitation Act which would prescribe the limitation period for the 
exercise of such inherent power of the court, therefore the residuary 
Article 181 of the Limitation Act shall be attracted. And this is the ratio of 
Mandi Hassan’s case (supra) as far as the limitation for an application for 
the restoration of a civil revision (dismissed for non-prosecution) is concerned. 
This Article also applies to the application filed for the restoration of the 
application for restoration of a civil revision. It may be added here that for 
allowing or refusing both the said applications the rule of “sufficient 
cause” as envisaged by Section 5 of the Limitation Act and its principles 
shall be attracted, regardless of whether such section is applicable or not. 
Regarding the last point (leave granting), it is categorically held that 
limitation is a part of positive law, which has to be construed and applied 
as per the settled principles which are provided in numerous dicta of the 
Supreme Court; it has to be given due effect as per the mandate of law, 
therefore it is held that “limitation is not a mere technicality of form”. 
 
Civil Appeal No.934/2012 
15. 
 
None appeared on behalf of the respondents, who are 
proceeded against ex-parte. 
16. 
 
This appeal entails the following facts; the suit for 
possession, mandatory injunction etc. filed by the predecessor-in-interest 
of the respondents against the appellant was dismissed on 10.1.1998. The 
respondents’ appeal was allowed on 13.1.2000 and the suit was decreed. 
Aggrieved, the appellant filed a civil revision before the learned High Court 
on 2.3.2000 which was admitted to regular hearing on 27.3.2000 and 
 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 17 - 
 
finally dismissed for non-prosecution on 3.8.2006. The appellant filed an 
application for restoration of the civil revision along with an application for 
condonation of delay on 29.4.2011. The learned High Court through the 
impugned judgment dismissed the applications for restoration and 
condonation on the ground that the appellant was unable to establish 
sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing of the application for 
restoration of the civil revision. Hence, the instant appeal by the leave of 
the Court dated 9.10.2012 which reads as under:- 
 
“The main contention of the leaned counsel for the 
petitioner was that though the petitioner filed an 
application for restoration of revision petition after a 
year or so, none the less, it being regulated by Article 
181 of the Limitation Act cannot be held to be barred. 
The learned counsel relies on the case of “Muhammad 
Sadiq. Vs. Mst. Bashir and 9 others” (PLD 2000 
Supreme Court 820). He next contended that where 
decision on merits is more cherished goal of law and 
party at fault can be adequately punished by imposition 
of cost, dismissal for non-prosecution would be too 
harsh a measure in the circumstances of the case. 
 
2.  
Points raised need consideration. We, 
therefore grant leave to appeal, inter-alia, to consider 
the same. It be clubbed with Civil Appeal No.510 of 
2012 in Civil Petition No.436 of 2010 titled as 
“Ghulam Qadir and others. Vs. Sh. Abdul Wadood 
and others”.” 
 
17.  
Heard. After the civil revision was admitted to regular hearing, 
it was dismissed for non-prosecution on 3.8.2006, which the learned High 
Court was amply empowered to do in light of our view expressed in the 
earlier part of this opinion. After such dismissal, the appellant filed an 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 18 - 
 
application for restoration of the civil revision on 29.4.2011, i.e. 629 days 
beyond the three year limitation period stipulated in Article 181 of the 
Limitation Act. With respect to the ground propounded in the application 
for condonation of delay in filing of the restoration application viz. that the 
appellant was not aware of the dismissal of the revision petition, suffice it 
to say that it is unfathomable and frankly beyond our comprehension as 
to how a litigant (or his counsel) would be unaware of the dismissal of his 
case for approximately five years, or 1724 days to be precise. 
Furthermore, regarding the plea submitted in the application for 
restoration that the appellant’s default in appearance was not wilful 
rather was due to non-service, we may observe that the appellant’s 
counsel had been appearing in the past when the civil revision was fixed 
for hearing, and there is no requirement of law that the parties have to be 
served for every date of hearing. It is not the case of the appellant that the 
matter was not notified in the cause list issued by the court or that the 
name of their counsel was either omitted or there was any other error in 
this context. On the contrary it would appear that a notice was specifically 
sent by the office to the appellant’s counsel which was served upon him. 
The order of dismissal of the revision petition dated 3.8.2006 clearly 
postulates “inspite (sic in spite) of service of the counsel for the petitioner, no body (sic 
nobody) is present on his behalf. Dismissed for non-prosecution”. Moreover, we are 
not persuaded that the appellant is entitled to discretionary relief after 
hibernating for so many years and finally waking up to belatedly claim 
restoration of his civil revision. In light of the above, we find that the 
learned High Court was correct in dismissing the civil revision for non-
prosecution and refusing to condone the delay and refusing to restore the 
civil revision. This appeal is hereby dismissed.  
 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 19 - 
 
Civil Appeal No.1247/2014 
18.  
The facts of this case are that the civil revision filed by the 
respondents was admitted to regular hearing by the learned High Court 
on 9.3.2000, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.11.2004. 
The respondents moved an application for restoration of the same on 
10.5.2010 along with an application of condonation of delay, which 
(applications) were dismissed on 11.5.2010. Aggrieved, the respondents 
challenged this order before this Court by filing Civil Appeal No.529-
L/2013 which (appeal) was allowed vide judgment dated 7.11.2010 because 
the application for restoration filed by the respondents which was 
accompanied by an affidavit was dismissed in limine without seeking a 
reply from the appellant (who was a respondent in the said civil revision) and the 
matter was remanded to the learned High Court to decide the matter 
afresh after the reply of the respondent. The learned High Court through 
the impugned judgment has accepted the said application holding that as 
the revision was admitted to regular hearing it could not, in the light of 
the law laid down in Muhammad Sadiq’s case (supra), be dismissed for 
non-prosecution; besides it was within time as the respondents learnt 
about the dismissal on 14.4.2010 through the patwari and the limitation 
would start from the date of knowledge; it is also held that a sufficient 
cause has been made out because the counsel for the respondents did not 
receive the cause list. The impugned judgment was challenged before this 
Court, and leave was granted vide order dated 29.9.2014 to consider the 
following: 
 
“Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 
Civil Revision was admitted for regular hearing on 
9.3.2000; that it was dismissed for non-prosecution on 
19.11.2004; that an application for restoration was 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 20 - 
 
filed on 10.5.2010 after about 5 years 6 months and 11 
days along with an application under Section 5 of the 
Limitation Act; that the Limitation Act is not applicable 
as it has been held by a larger Bench of this Court in 
Hafeez Ahmed Vs. Civil Judge (PLD 2012 SC 400); 
that no valid ground was given for condonation of 
delay; that each and every day was to be explained by 
the respondents for delay in filing the application for 
restoration. Learned counsel further contended that 
leave has already been granted in Civil Appeal No. 
510/2012 on the same point and the matter has been 
referred to the larger Bench and other cases involving 
similar controversy are also directed to be clubbed 
with. In view of the above, leave to appeal is also 
granted in this petition. The main appeal shall be listed 
along with Civil Appeal No. 510/2012 and other cases 
of similar nature. In the meanwhile, the proceedings 
before 
the 
learned 
High 
Court 
shall 
remain 
suspended.” 
 
19.  
Heard. As we have held in the earlier part of this opinion, the 
revisional court can dismiss a revision petition for non-prosecution 
despite its admission for regular hearing when the jurisdiction of the 
revisional court was invoked by a party, therefore the order of dismissal 
dated 19.11.2004 was valid and the reliance placed upon Muhammad 
Sadiq’s case (supra) by the learned High Court in the impugned order is 
misplaced. As regards the reasons for non-appearance of the respondents 
or their counsel on 19.11.2004, it is their case that the counsel shifted his 
office and did not receive the cause list (the affidavit of the counsel has not been filed 
by the respondents but that of a clerk); it is not the case of the respondents that the 
name of the counsel was misprinted or not mentioned at all in such list; 
there is no mention as to when the office was allegedly changed; it is also 
not established or stated that during the long period the respondents got 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 21 - 
 
in touch to find out the fate of their case. It is baldly alleged that they 
learnt about the dismissal from the patwari but there is no affidavit of the 
patwari in this regard. These aspects have not been considered by the 
learned High Court and an application time barred by 871 days has been 
allowed predominantly on the basis of Mohammad Sadiq’s case (supra) 
which we have declared is not the correct enunciation of law. The non-
appearance of the respondents for no justifiable reason, along with the 
immense delay in filing the application on account of the alleged ignorance 
of the respondents which has not been so proved on the record does not 
warrant exercise of discretion in their favour. The learned High Court has 
seriously erred in restoring the respondents’ civil revision by allowing the 
application for condonation of delay and the application restoration of the 
civil revision, in light whereof, this appeal is allowed and the impugned 
judgment is hereby set aside. 
 
Civil Appeal No.509/2006 
20. 
The facts of this appeal in brief are that the appellant’s civil 
revision before the learned High Court was dismissed for non-prosecution 
on 13.9.2002. He moved an application for its restoration on 7.2.2003 
which was dismissed by the learned High Court vide the impugned 
judgment on the ground that the application was filed after 4 months and 
23 days after the date of dismissal of the revision petition. The application 
was returned by the office with some objections and was re-filed on 
12.5.2004 after a lapse of 1 year 2 months and 21 days, which is beyond 
the period of limitation as per the law laid down in the cases reported as 
Said Ali Vs. Safdar Ali and others (2004 SCMR 387) and Allah Bachai 
and others Vs. Fida Hussain and others (2004 SCMR 615) wherein it 
was held that Article 181 of the Limitation Act would not apply. Leave was 
Civil Appeals No.510/2012, 934/2012, 1247/2014 & 509/2006                                  
               - 22 - 
 
granted in this case to consider whether the provisions of Article 181 ibid 
are attracted or not. This appeal was tagged with the other cases 
seemingly on the proposition as to whether a civil revision once admitted 
for regular hearing cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution. We have 
already settled the issue though this opinion however the issue regarding 
the application of Article 181 of the Limitation Act stands finally settled in 
the law declared by this Court in Mandi Hassan’s case (supra). The case of 
Allah Bachai (supra) has been declared per incuriam while the decision in 
Said Ali’s case (supra) is a leave refusing order which is not the enunciation 
of law by this Court. In light of the above, we could have thought of 
hearing the matter, but as none represents the appellant we have no other 
option except to dismiss this appeal for non-prosecution. 
21.  
To summarize, Civil Appeals No.510/2012 and 934/2012 are 
dismissed, Civil Appeal No.1247/2014 is allowed and Civil Appeal 
No.509/2006 is dismissed for non-prosecution. 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Announced in open Court 
On 8.6.2016 at Lahore 
Approved for Reporting 
Waqas Naseer/* 
