' TARIQ JAVAID, J.---This judgment shall dispose of the instant revision as well as C.R.No.423-D/2004 (Raja Latif Ahmad v. Insaf Ali and others), as common question of law and facts are involved therein.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent had filed appeal before the learned District Judge against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court without giving the correct address of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was residing at Rawalpindi/ Islamabad while the address given in the Memo of Appeal was Chak No.70-TB Tehsil Arifwala, District Pakpattan. It is contended that the petitioner was never residing at the said address and no notice of hearing was served upon him at his actual address, therefore, he has been contemned unheard. Hence, this revision was filed against the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the-revisions on the ground that this revision was filed against the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court. It is also argued that this revision is filed by one year two months delay and hence it is not maintainable. He has not addressed arguments on merits of the case.
4. Regarding the delay in filing the revision learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the attorney, who was conducting the case died on 25-4-1999 while the judgment had already been' announced on 30-11-1998. The fact that the judgment had been passed was never ever communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, he had never known that there was any appeal pending against him or any judgment had been passed therein and as soon as he came to know about the factum of judgment dated 30-11-1998 he filed application for the grant of certified copy and after receipt thereof he filed the civil revision. It is further maintained that the civil revision was admitted to regular hearing on 25-8-2000, therefore, once the case is admitted to regular hearing the question of. Limitation cannot be re-agitated.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner never received notice of the filing of appeal before the first appellate Court nor he had any knowledge of the impugned proceedings and judgment. Since the attorney had died and the copy of the death A certificate has been placed on the file as well as that the case has already been admitted to regular hearing it would not serve the interest of justice to non- suit the petitioner at this late stage on the technical ground of limitation. Since the petitioner has been condemned unheard the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the appeal before the learned first appellate Court shall be deemed to be pending. The parties are directed to appear before the learned first appellate Court on 24-11-2010.