C.M. No, 4391 -2012 UMAR ATA BANDIAL, C J.---This is an application for placing on record documents statedly germane to the resolution of the main controversy. Allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions.
CM disposed of.
C.M. Nos.2343 to 2345 of 2011 and C.M. 2816 of 2011
2. The petitioner was required to deposit instalment for the land allotted to h'.m by order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) dated 31-5-1976 on or before 15-6-1976. The petitioner could not make the deposit. Accordingly, his entitlement was cancelled. The petitioner's appeal, revision petition and review petition were all dismissed. He approached this Court by this petition filed in 1977 wherein notice was issued on 7-6-1977 when an order of status quo was also granted. A number of hearings were held and order of status quo was modified on 25-1-1978 to be maintained with respect to the further allotment of the land in question to any other party. However in the meanwhile, possession of private respondent No,4 of the land was protected. The petition did not get listed for 16 years until 12-10-1994 when it was noted that learned counsel for the petitioner had passed away. Notice by postcard was issued to the parties. On 30-10-1994 the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on the ground that respondent No,4 had appeared in the Court whereas none appeared for the petitioner and since both of them were residents of Tehsil Bhakkar, District Mianwali, therefore, it was presumed that the postcard has also been served on the petitioner.
3. The present application for restoration of the petition was filed on 22-6-2011 some 18 years after its dismissal for non-prosecution. It was filed by attorney of the legal heirs of the petitioner.
According to the power of attorney the legal heirs are residents of Mughal Building, Faqirabad, Tehsil and District Peshawar. The grounds taken by learned counsel for the petitioner for restoration of the petition is that postcard is no means for serving a party. He has relied on Begum Darab Sultana and others v. Custodian and others (PLD 1982 SC 330).
4. The following salient points are relevant for determining the present application for restoration: firstly, that it is filed a good 34 years after the last hearing of the petition at which the petitioner was duly represented. Secondly, that the application for restoration is filed nearly 18 years after the date when the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thirdly, that the address of his service given by the petitioner with his pleadings is at Chak No,209, TDA, Tehsil Bhakkar, District Mianwali, whereas it transpires during the hearing that the petitioner was actually resident in Peshawar. Even if that admission is not taken into account, it is clear that at some point of time, the petitioner shifted to Peshawar but did not intimate the change of his address to the Court. Under the rule contained in Hussain Bukhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others (PLD 1970 SC 1), the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("C.P.C.") regulateS the proceedings of a writ petition. Order VII, rule 24 of the C.P.C. Requires as follows: "A party who desires to change the address for service given by him as aforesaid shall file a verified petition, and the Court may direct the amendment of the record accordingly. Notice of such petition shall be given to such other parties to the suit as the Court may deem it necessary to inform, and may be either served upon the pleaders for such parties or be sent to them by registered post, as the Court thinks fit."
5. The obligation to file the correct address of service, evident from the rules following Order VII, rule 19, C.P.C., clearly imposed a duty on the petitioner to notify his correct address of service. The effort by learned counsel for the petitioner to reverse that duty of effecting service on to the Court, thereby implying an obligation to find an absent party all over the country, is not intended by law. It is also clear that the conduct of a party that was so indolent as not to inquire about the fate of its case from its counsel; and after his demise by failing to engage a fresh counsel and thereafter to delay for two decades the filing of present application for restoration of the petition actually tantamount to abandonment of the cause. There is no merit for restoration of the writ petition which is apparently a speculative venture that is launched by an attorney who is interested to revive the proceedings in respect of land which is admittedly not in possession of the petitioner and was allowed to be retained by the respondent No,4. At best an interim order was made to prevent further allotment of such land.
6. In view of the above circumstances, these applications are dismissed.