1. ' This Revision Petition No.253 of 1976, filed by petitioner, British India Steam Navigation Company and other against respondent National Security Insurance Company Limited was dismissed in default on 19-2-1984, when none appeared on behalf of the petitioner to pursue the petition. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Lari, learned counsel for the respondent was however present on that day i.e. 19-2- 1984. Mr. Ibrahim Peshori, learned counsel for the petitioner filed application under Order XLI rule 19 read with section 151, C.P.C. On 20-2-1984, supported by an affidavit in which he prayed that this revision be admitted for regular hearing. Notice was issued to the respondent for this application and on 15-4-1984, it was heard.
2. ' The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Civil Revision cannot be re-admitted or restored. His contention is that application under Order XLI, rule 19 is not maintainable in law as this provision specifically relates to the restoration of the appeals. He has relied upon cases of Messers Ghani Sons Industries Limited, Karachi, v. Mirza Akhlaque Ahmed PLD 1974 Kar. 339 and a case AIR 1945 Mad .103.
3. ' On the other hand Mr. Ibrahim Peshori, Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that a revision petition dismissed in default could be restored if sufficient cause is shown for non-appearance of the petitioner. In this connection he placed reliance on cases of Municipal Committee Jhelum v.
4. Moulvi Muhammad Sharif 1971 SCMR '740, Jan Muhammad v. Muhammad Asghar, PLD 1981. SC 153, PLD 1975 Lah. 911, PLD 1972 Lah. 514 and unreported case in Civil Rev.No.249/ 1980 Muhammad Arbab and others v. Jaffary Muhammad Hussain decided by the Court on 25-4-1982, and PLD 1982 Lab.
5. 192.
6. ' In the case of Ghani Sons Industries Limited, Karachi v. Mirza Akhlaque Ahmed PLD 1974 Kar.
339. It was held revision petition dismissed in default for non-appearance cannot be restored by resorting to the section 151, C.P.C. Similarly same view is taken in AIR 1945 Mad.
7. 103.
8. ' Regarding case reported in PLD 1981 SC 513, it is stated that restoration of revision application be determined in peculiar circum stances of each case when sufficient cause is shown and this case was remanded back and point which is involved in this case about the maintainability of the restoration application was not pointed out nor discussed. Regarding case of Municipal Committee Jhelum v. Moulvi Muhammad Shafi, the facts in that case were that an application seeking temporary injunction was dismissed for non-prosecution rind it was held that there is no legal bar to renew the application. Supreme Court has not allowed the restoration but observed that Order XI, rule 3 & 4, which will attract and permit the institution of fresh application or setting aside the dismissal order and it is left to the petitioner to choose any remedy. In cases reported in PLD 1975, Lah. 911 and PL D 1972 Lah. 54, applications for restoration of applications were allowed by the Courts but these matters pertain to Settlement cases. The revision petitions were restored in the cases reported in PLD 1982 Lah. 192, and unreported case of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.248/80, decided on 25-4-1982.
9. ' I am of the view that Order XLI, rule 19 is not applicable. The important aspect of this case is that there is no specific provision for the Restoration of Revisions in Civil Procedure Code. On the other hand there is also no provision for dismissal of Civil Revision due to non-prosecution. In these circumstances 1, feel that on the principles of Natural Justice, the restoration could be considered.
10. There are different views of the Courts as discussed above. Mr. Kazmi learned counsel has no objection on merits as he has frankly stated that there is personal affidavit of Advocate and good cause has been shown but he has taken only legal plea. If this application is dismissed there is no bar for filing fresh revision as held by Supreme Court in case reported in 1981 SCMR 940.
11. ' In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, I, restore the revision to its original number and position. The legal position is still not clear because there are different views. Mr. Justice Muhammad Haleem, the then Judge of Sind High Court, in the case reported in PLD 1974 339 has discussed the entire case law on this point and I have no hesitation in accepting that view but Supreme Court in two cases mentioned above has remanded the case back. On the point of applicability of Order XLI, rule 19, Order XI, rule 13 and section 151, C.P.C. in case of restoration of Civil Revision, both the learned counsel have not cited any relevant decision of Supreme Court where the revisions have been restored under the provision of C.P.C.