Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC and Restoration of Suit with Condonation of Delay.
تاخیر معافی کے ساتھ دعویٰ کی بحالی اور نظرِثانی عدالت کے اختیارات کی حدود
مقدمے کا پس منظر
سپریم کورٹ کے سامنے قانونی سوال
سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ اور قانونی اصول
نظرِثانی عدالت کے اختیارات کی حد
حتمی نتیجہ
قانونی اہمیت
Must read judgement
2025 S CMR 2092
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Yahya Afridi, CJ and Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, J
Ch. FAYYAZ-UR-REIIMAN KHALID -Petitioner
Versus
AMIR JAVED and others-Respondents
Civil Petition No. 1898-L of 2021, decided on 29th July, 2025.
(Against the order dated 16.09.2021 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No. 59849 of 2017).
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-
S. 115 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5-Suit dismissed for non-prosecution Inability to pursue the case proceedings due to being behind bars/in jail---Belated filing of restoration application along with condonation of delay application---Sufficient cause--Revisional court, jurisdiction of Scope Suit was restored by Trial Court exercising its discretion-Revisional court as well as High Court held the restoration application to be time-barred---Question requiring determination before the Supreme Court was as to "Whether the revisional court exercising jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C. could reverse the discretionary findings reached by the Trial Court in exercise of its lawful jurisdiction while condoning the delay in filing of application for restoration of suit?"-Held: In the impugned orders it was found that the restoration application was barred by time, whereas, it was revealed from perusal of the paper book that the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was available which escaped the attention of the revisional court-Supreme Court did not agree with the reasoning assigned by the revisional court which was appreciated by the High Court through the impugned order that such grounds as disclosed in the restoration application could have been considered had it been filed within thirty days of order-Had the application been filed within thirty days, the condonation application was not required Condonation application was filed when statutory period for filing restoration application had lapsed Such delay was then required to be explained in the condonation application which the petitioner did and the Trial Court was in consonance with the grounds mentioned therein when it accepted the applications both for restoration and condonation-The impugned orders of the High Court and that of the revisional court were set aside and the order of the Trial Court was restored-Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, in circumstances.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
S. 115-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199-Revisional court-Jurisdiction-Scope-Interreference of revisional court and suhsequently the y the High Court against exercise of lawful f lawful jurisdiction by the Trial Court-Limits and extent-Indisputably the the revisional court has limited jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C. which includes. (1) when Trial Court was found to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law; (ii) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (iii) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity---However, when a lawful jurisdiction was exercised by the Trial Court then the revisional court followed by High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot reverse it by expressing their own views over and above the lawful discretion exer exercised by the trial court unless found within frame of section 115 of C.P.C.
Petitioner in person.
Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 in person. Respondents Nos. 2 and 6 (died). Nemo for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.