' WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.---This revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and order dated 28-3-2005, whereby Additional District Judge-I, Haripur, dismissed the application of petitioners, filed for restoration of Application No,6/6 as well as Objection Petition No,80/4, for non-prosecution.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that landed property of petitioners was acquired by respondent No,1 through Award No,16 dated 12-5-1996 and feeling aggrieved the petitioners preferred objection petition for change of classification as well as for enhancement of compensation amount. The objection petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23-1-2003 and petitioners applied for restoration but the same was also dismissed for non-prosecution on 10- 9-2004. The petitioners filed another application for restoration of application filed for restoration of objection petition and the objection petition and the learned referee Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 28-3-2005 Hence, this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that the learned referee Court in haste not only dismissed the objection petition of petitioners but also turned down the applications filed for restoration of objection petition and law favours adjudication of cases on merits. It was argued that valuable rights of petitioners are involved in the case and prayed for restoration of objection petition so the case be decided on merits in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposed the contentions of petitioners and supported the impugned judgments and orders of the Court below.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. A perusal of record would show that landed property etc. Of petitioners was acquired by respondent No,1 through Award No,16 dated 12-5-1996 and petitioners feeling aggrieved preferred objection petition for change of classification as well as for enhancement of compensation amount of acquired land and trees. The objection petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23-1-2003 and petitioners applied for restoration but the same was also dismissed for non- prosecution on 10-9-2004. The petitioners filed another application for restoration of application filed for restoration of objection petition and the objection petition. Although, in the instant case, the conduct of petitioners and their counsel is not found upto the mark, however, the law leans in favour of adjudication of cases on merits and trial Court appears to have dismissed the objection petition in haste manner. In the circumstances it would be appropriate and just to accord ample opportunity to the petitioners to substantiate their case.
7. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed, all the impugned orders of referee Court are hereby set aside and on acceptance of applications filed for restoration of objection petition, the objection petition stands restored. The case is remanded back to the learned referee Court for decision on merits after recording pro and contra evidence of the parties and in accordance with law, within four months, preferably. Parties are directed to appear before the said court on 4-3- 2013.