' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.--Through these application, the applicants/ petitioners seek restoration of their Appeal No,117 of 2004 which was dismissed by this Court on 1-2-2006 in default.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants petitioners submits that the applicants petitioners are residents of District Pakpattan who had filed this appeal before Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan under R.S.A. No,19 of 2001 but subsequently District Pakpattan came within the jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, Lahore and the titled appeal was accordingly transferred to this Court where it was renumbered as RSA 117 of 2004. Further submits that the petitioners were informed about the transfer of titled case at Lahore but no notice for fixation thereof was served upon the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners waited for the notice regarding fixation of the case but they did not receive notice from the office. Further contends that after passing of reasonable time, the petitioners came to Lahore on 5-9-2007 and enquired about the case, then it came to their knowledge that the titled appeal had already been dismissed in default on 1-2-2006. Hence this application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that under Article 181 of Limitation Act, the period for restoration is three years, therefore, they did not feel the necessity of filing an application under section 5 of Limitation Act for the condonation of delay. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the law laid down by honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1992 SCM R 1895.
' Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. In para 2 of the application under section 151, C.P.C. For restoration of titled appeal, the petitioners have admitted that they were informed by the office of this Court that their case has been transferred to Lahore. Therefore, it was duty of the petitioners to remain vigilant about their case but they remained indolent. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the restoration of appeal is governed under Article 181 of the Limitation Act which provides a period o three years, therefore they did not fib application under section 5 of Limitation Act for the condonation of delay is misconceived as the time for readmission of appeal dismissed for non prosecution is 30 days. The said period runs from the date o dismissal of appeal for non prosecution am not from the date of gaining knowledge o dismissal because the matter in issue fall under Article 168 of Limitation Act and no under Article 181 of Limitation Act. Lay laid down by honourable Supreme Court o Pakistan in case Haji Ghulam Sarwar v Daya Ram reported as 1975 SCM R 179 is very much clear on the point.
7. In view of the above discussion, both the C.Ms. Are without merit which are dismissed.