| Law Points | Bench | Citation / Authority | ||
|
If rev. pet. Falls in Section 15 than it is of aggrieved restore under Section 181. If/where an order for non-prosecution was itself a void order (in this case however Court had dismissed despite the knowledge of POA of -----having been cancelled, then it would be t rated as an application under Section 151 and not Order9, Rule 9 and Limitation of residuary A.181 & not A.163 would apply.
Leave granted to consider wherefor:- a)revision petition could be DNP after admitted by hearing? b)Whether rev. dismissed NP could be restored by involving inherent powers of the Court?
c)inhernet powers of the Court could be circumscribed by provisions of the Limitation Act.
e)Dismissal of a revision petition and that of an application for his restoration can be treated, alike of any interpretation of law and procedure?
f)Limitation in such cases can be considered as a technicality of a nes form. |
PLD 2012 Sind 110 (113/A) | |||
| If revision not admitted yet, it can be DNP. Revised dismissal and restore only poss it inherent jurisdiction under section 115 invoked by Revision allowed in hadn acquisition case when objection petition DNP. Restoration application also DNP. Althrough conduct of the petitioners and their counsel not found upto the mark, however, law leans in favour of adjudication on merits and the trial court seems to have dismissed it in hasty manner. | (S) | 2013 MLD 1288 (1290/A) |