Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Revision No. 2‑A of 1963‑64, decided on 19th May 1965.
O. IX, r. 4‑Dismissal in default‑Application for restoration‑Counsel not leaving instructions to appear on his behalf in his absence does so at own risk‑Application for restoration of petition rejected.
Ghazanfar Ali for Petitioner.
This is an application for the restoration of a revision dismissed in default on the 12th of January 1965. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that his case was at No. 18 and he expected that it will be called later in the day. He says that he came at 9 a. m. and then went to the High Court from where he returned at 10‑15 a.m. If the learned counsel went to the High Court he did so at his own risk. If he had left instruc tions with somebody to appear on his behalf, the case would have not been dismissed in default. Granting request like this would mean that the Court should dismiss no case in default should wait till the counsel turns up. This is likely to create an awkward precedent and can bring the whole work of this Court to a standstill.
In these circumstances, I cannot accept the application restoration which is rejected hereby.
A. H. Application rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer