QAZI GH NABI Vs. QAZI AB HAMID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the medium of petition in hand, the petitioner namely Qazi Ghulam Nabi has sought indulgence of this court for the restoration of Civil Revision No: 136/2000, dismissed by this court on 25 -04 -2001 for non -appearance of the petitioner. It is inter alia maintained that the petitioner filed a revision petition against the order dated: 18 -11 -2000 passed by Addl. District Judge, Srinagar. That on 25 -01 -2001 this court came to issue notice in the said revision petition which was accepted by Mr. M.A. Dar, advocate on behalf of respondents and the case came to be adjourned for service of notice on the remaining respondents. That after 25 -01 -2001 the petition was listed in the court on 11 -02 -2001 when the lawyers were on strike as a result of which the petitioner bonafidely believed that since the lawyers are on strike, the court would adjourn the case but on the said dated Mr.A.K.. Malik, learned counsel appeared for the respondents and this court heard the matter on part and directed the matter to come up next week. That the matter was listed before the Court on 25 -04 -2001 when again the lawyers were on strike. That since the petitioner has not caused his appearance on 11 -04 -2001 before the court as the bonafidely believed that the court may have adjourned the case of its own. Therefore on 25 -04 -2001 also he did not cause his appearance. On this date Mr. Malik, learned counsel for the respondents appeared and the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. That in the revision petition an important question of law was raised which need authoritative pronouncement, therefore the same could not have been dismissed in default.

(2.) MR . A.K. Malik appearing on behalf of the respondents has not filed the objections, however has verbally stated that the petition in hand is not sustainable in law because the provisions of CPC cannot be made applicable to this petition.

(3.) I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents and also heard Mr. M.A. Qayoom, learned counsel for the petitioner.