1. ' An appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the District Court against the trial Court's decree of dismissal of his pre-emption suit came to itself be dismissed for non-prosecution and his application for restoration thereof is, after contest, still awaiting disposal. Therein, the petitioning vendee-defendants, the respondents in that Court, moved a miscellaneous application for the plea of restoration of appeal being put to issue for the purpose of decision being made on the basis of evidence. By the herein impugned order dated 6-7-1992, learned Additional District Judge refused to accede to the request of the defendants with the observation that plea relating to misconception about the date of hearing of appeal is such as is not in the need of any issue being framed thereabout or evidence having to be led for and against it.
2. It is inconceivable that if not on the basis of evidence, how else will then the appellate Judge be able to come to a finding about the existence or otherwise of sufficient cause regarding the alleged misconception of date without the relevant facts being brought under consideration, upon their being duly proved or disproved? Then, why may the evidence have not to be the only basis for reaching any conclusion thereabout? Learned counsel has invited attention to Abdul Raoof v. Mst.
3. Khalida PLD 1968 Lahore 423, which squarely supports his stand and knocks the bottom out of the order passed by the Additional District Judge.
4. ' All the same, it is not necessary that this revision petition be admitted to regular hearing. Exercise of revisional power being discretionary in its nature, in the facts and circumstances of this litigation, I do not feel pursuaded to so admit it for the reason that such a course will unduly prolong the parent litigation and as against it, the grievance about unlawful treatment, if any, meted out to any matter under contest between the parties can well be agitated in the proceedings that may be maintained for challenging the ultimate order that may be made on the point in such a matter.
2. In the above view, this revision petition is premature and is disposed of as such, with the above observations.