ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

R. A. No. S – 116 & 117 of 2010

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

Hearing of cases

1. For orders on CMA No.453/2010

2. For hearing of main case

(Notice issued to respondent & applicant as well as advocate)

21.01.2019

Mr. Mujeebur Rahman Soomro along with applicants.

Mr. Parmanand advocate for respondent.

.....................

The applicant filed a suit for pre-emption in the Court of II^nd Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur as Suit No.15/1999. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 14.03.2008 and application for restoration of suit was filed on 16.03.2008. He claimed in the affidavit that he noted the date of case as 19.03.2008 instead of 14.03.2008.

I have heard learned counsel and perused the record.

The affidavit shows that he was informed of a date by the Reader as 19.03.2008. In that case there was no reason, occasion or logic to move this application on 16.03.2008 when he had already noted the date as 19.03.2008. There was no justification in saying that all his matters were supposed to be adjourned on any Wednesday of the week. There was no compulsion on the Presiding Officer so as to give him date of Wednesday. This application was dismissed by the trial Court which order was maintained by the appellate Court. The applicant has not only misled the Court when he says that he was informed by the Reader as of the date but also misled the Court as no diaries of the date of 19.03.2008 were filed along with affidavit in support of the application. There were no diaries of the cases wherein he claims to have appeared before the Civil Judge, Pano Akil. The affidavit was absolutely silent to provide a justification to support the application. This application for pre-emption was pending since 1999 and the evidence of the plaintiff / applicant was not even recorded. The issues were framed on 05.12.2001 and it took seven (07) years to dismiss the suit for non-prosecution on account of consistent non-appearance of witnesses. The order was maintained by the appellate Court and I do not find any reason to interfere in the order of trial Court as well as of the appellate Court. It is nothing but to mislead the Court and, as such, I dismiss these Revision Applications with a cost of Rs.10,000/-, to be deposited in the clinic fund of this Court.

__________________

J U D G E

N.M.