The language used under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“C.P.C.”) unequivocally visualizes that the revisional court has to analyze the allegations of jurisdictional error, such as when an exercise of jurisdiction is not vested in the court below, or a jurisdiction that is vested in it by law was not exercised, and/or the court has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, or committed some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material and has affected the ultimate decision. The Court can even exercise its suo motu jurisdiction to ensure effective superintendence and visitorial powers to make sure, by all means, the strict adherence to the safe administration of justice, and may correct any error unhindered by technicalities.
In the C.P.C., there is no specific section or order which applies to the restoration of revision application dismissed in default. In unison, no specific Article is mentioned in the Limitation Act,.......
CP NO.423-L of 2018
Haji Musharraf Mahmood Khan Versus Sardarzada Zafar Abbas
PLD 2024 SUPREME COURT 588
In the C.P.C., there is no specific section or order which applies to the restoration of revision application dismissed in default. In unison, no specific Article is mentioned in the Limitation Act, whereby any specific period of limitation is provided for applying for restoration of a revision application dismissed for non-prosecution. To address this situation, the legislature has provided a residuary Article 181 in the Limitation Act, which is meant for all applications for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the schedule or by Section 48 of the C.P.C., and within the province and under the purview of this Article, all such applications can be preferred within a period of 3 years when the right to apply accrues.
CP NO.423-L of 2018
Haji Musharraf Mahmood Khan Versus Sardarzada Zafar Abbas
PLD 2024 SUPREME COURT 588
0 Comments