Find a Lawyer

Constitution of Pakistan (1962),

Art. 62 and Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI‑Application for restoration of Review petition dismissed for non‑prosecution‑ Conflicting statements by Attorney and counsel regarding non‑appearance‑Bar council's attention directed to be drawn for necessary action.

Mahmood Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 28th June 1971:

SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑

This is an application for restoration of Civil Review Petition No. 63 of 1968, which was dismissed for non‑prosecution by a Bench of this Court on the 14th of February 1969. The Attorney for the petitioner, Sheikh Abdul Karim, had appeared before the Bench on that date and stated that the counsel for the petitioner (Mr. Mahmood Ahmad Qureshi) was avoiding appearance in the petition.

The Attorney, who is also present today, has reiterated the same statement, adding further that he had at first telephoned the learned counsel and had thereafter met with him personally to apprise him about the case, but the counsel had refused to enter appearance. The learned counsel, on the other hand, has stated that according to his instructions, the review petition was to be heard by a Bench comprising of Mr. Justice Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Mr. Justice Abdus Sattar. He had entered the Court room and found that Mr. Justice Muhammad Yaqub Ali was sitting with Mr. Justice Qadeeruddin Ahmad, and considering that his petition would come up after the Bench is re‑constituted with Mr. Justice Abdus Sattar sitting with Mr. Justice Muhammad Yaqub Ali, he came away to attend to his cases before the 1st Bench. Subsequently at about 10 a. m. he was informed by the Attorney that the petition had been called and was dismissed for non‑prosecution on the statement of the Attorney, as mentioned above.

This conflict in the statements of the learned counsel and the Attorney is regrettable, but we need not resolve it here, except to say that the learned counsel's statement shows a strange indifference on his part in attending to his case. He did not even bother to inquire and to know, although, according to him, he was ready to argue the brief, as to when the case was likely to come up and before whom. If the Attorney were sure that the counsel would appear, he would have certainly asked the Court's indulgence for time to secure his counsel's presence.

The unfortunate result is that the petitioner has apparently suffered in consequence of this default on the part of his counsel or the Attorney, which needs to be looked into by the Bar counsel.

But more curiously, although the learned counsel had come to know on the same day that his petition had been dismissed for non‑prosecution, he did not file the present petition soon thereafter but waited for more than two months and filed it on the 30th of April 1969, long after the period of limitation had expired. There is no satisfactory explanation at all for this inordinate delay in filing the petition; which has, therefore, to be dismissed on that basis alone.

A copy of this order should be sent to the Secretary, Bar Council, Lahore, for necessary action.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.