Master Fazalullah and another V. Mummy and others,

2022 Y L R 941 [Balochistan] Before Abdullah Baloch, J Master FAZALULLAH and another---Appellants Versus MUMMY and others ---Respondents Civil Revision No. 220 of 2010 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1195 of 2021, decided on 30th August, 2021. Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 5---Maxim "vigilantibus non dorminentibus jura subveniunt" (law helps vigilant not the indolent) ---Applicability ---Restoration of revision petition--- Petitioners' application for restoration was dismissed for non- prose cution on 14.11.2017--- Petitioners' contended that non- appearance was not deliberate/intentional; and that they were not intimated by their counsel about such dismissal ---Held, that petitioners and their counsel remained absent on various dates of hearing continuously without any prior information/intimation; and they kept silent for a long lasting period of more than 3 years without any justifiable reason/sufficient cause--- Present application for restoration did not contain any application for condonation of delay which showed the conduct and irresponsibility of petitioners --- Revision petition was dismissed in limine. Ghulam Qadir and others v. Sh. Abdul Wadood and others PLD 2016 SC 712 rel. Syed Manzoor Ahmed Shah for Appellants. Date of hearing: 20th August, 2021. ORDER ABDULLAH BALOCH, J .---This order disposes of C.M.A. No.1195 of 2021 filed by the applicants/petitioners for restoration of the Civil Revision Petition No.220 of 2010, which was dismissed in default and for non- prosecution on 14th November 2017.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners contended that the above titled Civil Revision Petition was pending before this Court against the conflicting findings of the subordinate Courts and admitted for regular hearing, but due to n on-appearance of petitioners and their counsel the same was dismissed in default and for non- prosecution. He further contended that whatsoever order has been passed by this Court the same was not in the knowledge of the applicants/petitioners and mere non- appearance on the part of the applicants is neither deliberate nor intentional, besides they were not intimated by their counsel about such dismissal of the petition; that the petitioners came to know one week ago, when the execution application was filed by the respondents before the executing Court for satisfaction of decree dated 20th February 2010; that valuable rights of the applicants/petitioners are involved, thus in the interest of justice the petition be restored to its original position.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, and perused the record minutely, which reveals that the instant petition was admitted for regular hearing on 14th May 2010 and proceeded from time to time till 26th July 2016 and thereafter the petitioners and their counsel remained absent on various dates of hearing continuously i.e. 21st October 2016, 3rd March 2017, 31st March 2017, 16th June 2017, 31st July 2017, 15th August 2017, 27th October 2017, 30th October 2017, 2nd November 2017, 8th November 2017 and 14th November 2017 without any prior information or intimation due to such long non- appearance of the petitioners and their counsel the petition was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution, vide order dated 14th November, 2017. Even otherwise, the petitioners and their counsel kept silent for a long lasting period of more than 31/2 years without any justifiable reason and sufficient cause. Even the application filed for restoration of petition does not contain any application for condonation of delay which aga in shows the conduct and irresponsibility of petitioners. Under such circumstances the laws laid down by the apex Court does not help the petitioners, "Maxim, 'vigilantibus non -dorminentibus jura subveniunt" (law helps vigilants not the indolents) in this regard I am also fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan passed in the case of "Ghulam Qadir and others v. Sh. Abdul Wadood and others" PLD 2016 Supreme Court 712; whereby it was held as under: "17. Heard. After the civil revision w as 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 applic ation 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 dismis sal 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 t hat 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 w as 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- prosecu tion". 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 Hig h 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." Thus, in view of the above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, the application is without any substance and sufficient cause is accordingly dismissed in limine. ZH/159/Bal. Application dismissed.