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.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 319 of 1973, decided on 5th June 1974.
(In the matter of restoration of C. P. S. L. A. No. 319 of 1973, dismissed by this Court on 14‑3‑1974).
‑‑ O. IX, r. 4‑Restoration‑Petition sought to be restored on ground of Advocate on record having fallen ill‑No reason given, why counsel could not be present or why his or Advocate‑on‑Record's clerk could not arrange to have matter mentioned in Court‑‑ Petition first passed over and then recalled after disposal of all listed petitions and word sent to office of Advocate on record s-Greater indulgence not possible‑Neither Advocate on record nor counsel having taken care to have proceedings watched even after being notified of pendency of proceedings, petition dismissed.
Malik Sher Bahadur, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wali Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 5th June 1974.
‑This is a miscellaneous application in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 319 of 1973 (Haji Muhammad Sharif v. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. Rawalpindi and others) which was dismissed for default on the 14th of March 19'74, on the ground that neither the learned counsel nor the learned Advocate‑on‑Record was present.
The present application is for restoration of the petition for special leave to appeal on the ground that the learned Advocate‑on‑Record seriously fell ill and, therefore, could not attend the Court on 14‑3‑74. There is nothing in the application to show as to why the learned counsel appearing in the case could not be present on the said date, nor is there any explanation as to why the clerk of the learned counsel or of the learned Advocate‑on -Record could not make arrangements to have the matter mentioned in Court It appears that this petition was first passed over and then re‑called after all other petitions on the list had been disposed of after sending word to the office of the learned Advocate‑on‑Record. It seems that neither the learned Advocate‑on‑Record nor the learned counsel took any care to have their proceedings in Court watched, even after they had been duly notified of the pendency of the proceedings.
In the circumstances, we see no justification at all to restore the matter. The Court could not have shown greater indulgence before dismissing the petition on the 14th March 1974.
The application is accordingly rejected.
Petition rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer