1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant, in a suit for recovery of a large sum of money by the respondents-plaintiffs, against the dismissal by the High Court of his writ petition.
2. ' The respondents' suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. The application for restoration of the suit was allowed and the suit was restored. The petitioner's revision before the District Judge and writ petition before the High Court were dismissed.
3. ' Two questions have been raised by the petitioner who himself is an Advocate; one of facts; (1), that there was no sufficient cause for restoration; and (2), that the application for restoration was time-barred.
4. After hearing him, we do not agree that the cause for restoration shown from the respondents side in the circumstances of this case (when reliance can be placed on the conduct of the Court as also the counsel involved) was not sufficient.
5. ' Regarding the question of limitation also the denial of the relief by the High Court in its discretionary writ jurisdiction in a case like the present one, does not merit interference by this Court. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.