This is an application for restoration of writ petition which was dismissed by this. Court for want of prosecution on 28.02.2013. It has been stated in the application that the original writ petition was sub-judice at Circuit Bench, Mirpur and the applicants had been prosecuting the case vigilantly, however, the same was transferred to headquarter on the application of respondents, without effecting service upon the petitioners and obtaining their objections, and thus, the applicants remained unaware of the fact and also remained searching the file at the relevant circuit. It has been claimed through a letter of the Registrar High Court dated 30.06.2014, the applicants got knowledge of the fact that the petition was transmitted to headquarter; which has been dismissed for want of prosecution vide order 28.02.2013 and instant the application for restoration has been films on 09.09.2014, promptly after obtaining knowledge of the original writ petition.
2. The respondents have filed objections stating therein that the original petition was sub-judice at Circuit Mirpur which stood transferred to 'principle seat vide order dated 02.03.2012 on the application of the respondents and the petitioners were well aware of the fact and they have also filed an application for transfer for return of the petition to the relevant circuit through Muhammad Raiz Inqalabi Advocate on 08.09.2012, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner ware not aware of the transfer of the case to headquarter. It has been. stated. that the applicant petitioners: after filing application for return of the file on 08.09,2012, did not bother to appear before the Court and the petition stood vide order dated 28.03.2013 and the instant application being, hopelessly time barred, also merits dismissal.
3. Mr. Muhammad Riaz Inqalabi, Advocate, has filed written arguments wherein, besides reiterating the facts of the, case, he has contended that the case was being heard at Circuit Mirpur and the parties are also residents of Mirpur, therefore, there was no justification for transfer of the case to headquarter, that too, without hearing the applicants, therefore, the order of transfer of the case and all the pubsequent orders are mala-fide and illegal. The learned counsel has claimed that the applicants could not obtain the knowledge well within time and thus could also not file the application for restoration within the prescribed period of limitation.
4. Mr. Bilquees Rasheed, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents negated the claim of the applicants and contended that despite having knowledge of the transfer of the case to headquarter and filing the application for return of the file to the relevant circuit the applicants cannot claim that they were not in the knowledge of transfer of the case. The learned counsel contended that the application is clearly time barred and no plausible and sufficient cause for delay has been incorporated in the application and restoration of that the petition will tantamount to open the doors of an indefinite litigation, therefore, the application maybe dismissed.
5. I have perused the written arguments of the applicants and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record carefully.
6. The sole claim of the applicants is that the original petition was transferred to the headquarter without hearing the petitioners and the petitioners have been condemned unheard.
7. It is also claim of the applicants that the transfer order and the other subsequent orders are illegal, arbitrary, mala-fide and the proper forum well within time and after attaining finality they are not competent to question or comment on any order.
8. As for the plea of the applicants regarding knowledge is concerned, a perusal of the original file reveals that Mr. Muhammad headquarter on 13.09.2012, when this Court entertained the application filed by him for return of the case to Mirpur Circuit. The other interim orders, of the file also reveal that the learned counsel for the applicants has been appearing before the Court, therefore, it can never be said that the applicants were not in the knowledge of the hereby repelled.
9 & 10. The order, impugned herein, was passed by the this Court on 28.03.2013 which has been challenged through the instant application on 09.07.2014, which is definitely barred by more than one restoration is not maintainable as it will beget unnecessary and indefinite litigation which will not be useful for the safer administration of justice.