' MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, J.--- Suit for declaration claiming proprietary and possessory rights in respect of House No.117-A situated in Babar Block, New Garden Town, Lahore instituted by respondent against the appellants was dismissed for want of prosecution on 8-12-2011. Application for restoration of the suit was made by the respondent suggesting certain reasons to justify her non-appearance. Along with the application for restoration, application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908) was made which after calling written reply and hearing the parties was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 3-10-2012, which has been called in question at the instance of appellants.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned order was made without provision of hearing to the appellants and as such is liable to be set aside on this score alone.
Further submitted that no "sufficient cause" was shown at the instance of respondent seeking indulgence of the court for restoration of suit. Submitted that the question of limitation was not attended to by the learned trial court thought the application was made at belated stage and was barred by time. Submitted that compromise was settled between the parties, which fact was concealed by the respondent by making an application for restoration.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel fox the respondent while making reference to the order dated 3-10-2012 submitted that the appellants not only filed written reply to the application but also submitted arguments, the reference of which has been made in the order impugned and as such contention of the appellants being condemned unheard is without force.
4. Submitted that since suit was not fixed for "hearing", therefore, the same could not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Seeking help from the dictum laid down in "Mst. SURAYA PARVEEN v. Mst.
RUKHSANA HANIF and others" (2012 SCM R 656), it was further maintained that since the lis was dismissed for non-prosecution on the date not fixed for hearing, therefore, question of limitation was not required to be taken into consideration.
5. Perusal of the record suggest that suit of the respondent was dismissed for want of prosecution on 8-12-2011. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record the certified copies of the interim order sheet prior to the date of dismissal of the suit, according to which the suit was adjourned for arguments on the application for 22-10-2011 again adjourning the lis for the same purpose for 24-10-2011, on which date the presiding officer was on leave and it was posted for 8-12- 2011 when due to non-appearance of the respondent the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution, though the appellants were in attendance through their counsel.
6. As the suit was fixed for submission of arguments on the miscellaneous application, therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent that the suit was not fixed for "hearing" cannot be questioned. Due to non-appearance of the respondent at the most miscellaneous application upon which arguments were required to be submitted could have been dismissed.
7. Since the date was not fixed for hearing, therefore, order of dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution was legally not sustainable.
8. As the dismissal of the suit was made by the learned trial court on the date not fixed for "hearing", therefore, question of limitation also becomes irrelevant as held in "Mst. SURAYA PARVEEN v. Mst.
RUKHSANA HANIF and others" (2012 SCM R 656).
9. Argument canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants that appellants were not permitted opportunity of hearing stands negated in view of the submission of written reply by them, the reference of which has been made by the learned trial court in the order impugned which further suggest that arguments were also heard.
' Judicial proceedings raises presumption of correctness as held in "FAYYAZ HUSSAIN v. AKBAR HUSSAIN and others" (2004 SCM R 964) and "CHIRAGH DIN v. MUMTAZ ALI and another"(2008 PCr.LJ 126) and as such bald statement by itself would not be sufficient to controvert the said presumption.
10. In view of the above state of facts and law no exception can be taken to the order impugned.
11. Appeal being devoid of force is dismissed but without any order as to costs.