2010 C L C 1343
[Quetta]
Before Ghulam Mustafa Mengal, J
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through its Manager ---Applicant
Versus
WASA through Managing Director and 3 others ---Respondents
Review Application No. 03 of 2010 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 15 of 2005,
decided on 14th May, 2010.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---
----S. 114 & O.X LVII, R.1 ---Review ---After dismissal of appeal in default for non
prosecution, appellant/applicant filed application for restoration of appeal without filing any
application for condonation of delay ---Said application was dismissed and after eight and half
months of dismissal order, applicant filed review application ---Review application was not
competent where neither any new and important matter or evidence had been disclosed nor
was any mistake or error apparent on the face of record ---In the present cas e neither any
mistake or error was apparent on the face of record nor there was discovery of a new and
important matter or evidence ---Applicant had failed to make out a case for review ---
Application was dismissed.
Mst. Kabir -un-Nisa and another v. Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore and 3 others
1975 SCMR 493; Abdul Ghaffar Abdul Rehman and others v. Asghar Ali and others PLD
1998 SC 363; Mian Rafiq Saigol and another v. Bank of Credit and Commerce
International (Overseas) Ltd. and another PLD 1997 SC 865 and Mst. Kalsoom Liak and
others v. Assistant commissioner and others 1996 SCMR 710 ref.
Muhammad Raouf Hashmi for Applicant.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 7th May, 2010.
JUDGMENT
GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J. ---The applicant/appel lant by filing this Review
application under section 114 read with Order XLVII, C.P.C, has prayed for setting aside
the order dated 24 -7-2009 passed by this Court.
The brief facts necessary for disposal of this review application are that the appeal file d
by the applicant -appellant against the order dated 19 -4-2005 and 25 -6-2005 passed by
Senior Civil Judge -I, Quetta was dismissed in default and for non -prosecution on 11 -4-
2008, thereafter, the applicant -appellant filed an application for recalling of the order
dated 11 -4-2008 and restoration of appeal on 23 -4-2009, on the ground that similar
application was filed in the office of this court on 5 -5-2008 had been misplaced,
therefore, second application was filed after delay of about one year, however; on C ourt
quarry and demand the learned counsel had also failed to produce the carbon copy of said
application, thus the application filed by the applicant -appellant was dismissed vide order
dated 24 -7-2009, hence; this review application.
Mr. Muhammad Rauf H ashmi, learned counsel for applicant contended that; the ground
on the basis of which application was dismissed was that same has been filed beyond the
limitation prescribed, under the law. In the present case Article 181 of Limitation Act is
applicable, a s the matter was fixed for formal proceedings and period of limitation
prescribed in the present situation is three years, therefore, order passed by this Court is
liable to be reviewed and set aside.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant -appell ant and have also gone through the
record. The appeal was dismissed in default and for non -prosecution on 11-4-2008.
Thereafter the applicant filed an application for restoration of appeal on 23 -4-2009
without filing any application for condonation of dela y; consequently, the said application
was dismissed vide order dated 24 -7-2009. Then after eight and half months of that order the
present Review application under section 114 read with Order XLVII, C.P.C. was filed.
It is well settled by now that a revi ew application is not competent where neither any new and
important matter or evidence has been disclosed nor is any mistake or error apparent on the
face of the record. In the instant case neither there is any mistake or error apparent on the face
of reco rd nor discovery of a new and important matter or evidence. The applicant has failed
to make out a case for review of the impugned order. In this behalf reference can be made to
Mst. Kabir -un-Nisa and another v. Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore and 3 others
(1975 SCMR 493), Abdul Ghaffar Abdul Rehman and others v. Asghar Ali and others (PLD
1998 SC 363), Mian Rafiq Saigol and another v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International
(Overseas) Ltd and another (PLD 1997 SC 865), Mst. Kalsoom Liak and other s v Assistant
Commissioner and others (1996 SCMR 710).
Thus, in view of the above, I do not find any merit in this review application and the same is
dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs.
H.B.T./33/Q Application dismisseThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.