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.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 198 of 1968, decided on 15th May 1969.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 20th March 1968, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 58 of 1958).
Art. 58 (3) and Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 114, illus. (f)‑Petition for Special Lave to Appeal‑Notice by registered post A. D. that petition would be taken up for hearing on any day after a fortnight‑A. D. receipt showing that notice was duly received‑Mere affidavit of attorney that he h. ad no knowledge of date fixed, in circumstance, not sufficient for restoration of petition dismissed for non prosecution.
Abdur Rashid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Fazle‑Elahi, Advocate Supreme Court‑absent) instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 15th May 1969.
This is an application for restoration of Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 198 of 1968, which was dismissed for non‑prosecution on the 3rd September 1968, as nobody appeared when the petition was taken up for hearing on the said date.
It is stated in the application that the Attorney engaged in the case did not receive any notice from the Registry at Karachi as to the date fixed for hearing of the special leave petition. The Attorney on record has sworn an affidavit to that effect,) but it appears from the record that on the 22nd August 19,18, a notice was sent to the Attorney by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due, informing him that the special leave petition would be taken up for hearing on any day during the week commencing the 2nd September 1968. The acknowledge ment receipt, which is on record, shows that it was correctly addressed to the Attorney and that the registered notice was received on the 24th August 1968. When a notice was sent by Registered Post to the correct address of the Attorney, the presumption is that the notice was duly served on him. The mere affidavit of the Attorney on the fact of the acknowledgement receipt, is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of the service of notice. No ground for restoration of the petition has been made out.
The petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer