RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.--- This is a petition by Mst. Rasool Bibi and others, petitioners, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 28-11-1988 rejecting their revision petition.
2. Mst. Rasool Bibi and others, petitioners, filed a suit for declaration against Munir Ahmad and others, respondents, claiming that they were occupancy tenants of the suit land and that they be granted possession thereof by way of consequential relief. On 27-7-1987, the Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot, dismissed their suit. The petitioners thereupon filed a regular first appeal, which came up for hearing on 6-1-1988, but as nobody appeared on their behalf, the same was dismissed by the District Judge. On 6-3-1988 the petitioners filed an application for restoration, which was time- barred and the same was, therefore, dismissed on 31-5-1988 not only on the ground of limitation, but also on the ground that there was no plausible explanation for their absence and no prayer was made for condonation of delay.
3. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed a revision petition in the High Court, which was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 28-11-1988.
4. On behalf of the petitioners, it is submitted that even assuming the petitioners were absent on 6- 1-1988, when their appeal was set down for hearing, the District Judge should have examined the record and decided the case on merits, in the absence of the petitioners and their counsel, as the appeal had earlier been admitted and could not be dismissed without recording a judgment on merits. In this connection, the learned counsel has referred to the Federation of Pakistan and 2 others v. Muhammad Hanif (1981 CLC 130). It is further submitted that the absence of the counsel for the petitioners on the date of hearing on 6-1-1988 being inadvertent and due to his preoccupation in other cases, the application of the petitioners for restoration did not merit dismissal.
5. Muhammad Hanif---s case (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not lay down the correct law, as Order XLI, Rule 17(1), C.P.C. Permits an appellate Court to dismiss am appeal where the appellant or his counsel does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing. In this respect Yusuf v. Mst. Rabia 1985 SCM R 1066 may be referred. As regards the reason submitted by the petitioners for the absence of their counsel on 6-1-1988, two lower Courts having found as a fact that the same was not sufficient to warrant restoration of the appeal. This Court cannot, in the absence of a finding that the reasons were arbitrary or perverse, set aside the same.
Such is not the case here. In these circumstances, the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no merit and are rejected. There being no merit in this petition, leave is refused.