1. Civil Revision Application No. 802 of 1991 been preferred by the petitioners herein - heirs and legal representative of the original plaintiff, which is of the year 1991, is called out twice, however, on both the occasions, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has chosen to remain absent, hence Civil Revision Application No. 802 of 1991 is dismissed for non-prosecution. Rule is discharged.
2. In view of the above, Mr.S.M. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - original defendant in Civil Revision Application No. 955 of 1995 seeks permission to withdraw the present Civil Revision Application No. 955 of 1995 with a liberty to submit an appropriate application to revive the Civil Revision Application No. 955 of 1995, in case, Civil Revision Application No. 802 of 1991 is restored in future.
3. In view of the above, Civil Revision Application No. 802 of 1991 is dismissed for non-prosecution. Rule is discharged and Civil Revision Application No. 955 of 1995 is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty in favour of the petitioner of Civil Revision Application No. 955 of 1995 to submit an appropriate application for revival of the Civil Revision Application No.955 of 1995, in case Civil Revision Application No. 802 of 1991, is restored to file. Rule is discharged.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
[M.R.
SHAH, J.] rafik Top