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. 62‑K of 1974, decided on 17th September 1974.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 22nd March 1974, in II Appeal No. 204 of 1972).
‑‑ Attending session of Senate by Senator--‑A personal privilege- Cannot be extended to professional work‑Contention that counsel, a Senator, could not appear on date of hearing due to his attendance at session of Senate and was entitled to privileged treatment, held, entirely misconceived.
‑‑ Art. 168‑Limitation, computation of Time for readmission of appeal dismissed for want of prosecution‑Runs from date of dismissal and not from date of knowledge of dismissal.
G. H. Abbasl, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Shafiq Ahmad, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 17th September 1973.
.‑This is a petition for Special Leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of Sind & Baluchistan High Court, refusing to re‑admit an appeal for hearing after the same had been dismissed for non‑prosecution.
The application for restoration of the appeal itself was barred by limitation, as it had been filed after the lapse of the 30 days' period provided by Article 168 of the Limitation Act.
The only contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing in support of this petition is that the limitation should have been computed from the date the petitioner came to know about the dismissal which, according to his statement in his affidavit, is 9‑1‑1974.
The learned counsel, engaged to appear for the petitioner, it is said, could not appear on that date as he was busy attending a session of the Senate at Islamabad. He claims that he had also sent a telegram to the Court requesting for an adjournment.
The contention that as the learned counsel was attending the session of the Senate, he was entitled to any privilege, is entirely misconceived. It is a personal privilege and this privilege cannot be extended to professional work.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as found by the High Court, did not also intimate to the High Court either by telegram or otherwise that he would not be available at the time of the hearing of the appeal due to his pre‑occupation with the work of the Senate.
Again, under Article 168 of the Limitation Act, the time, as rightly held by the High Court, begins to run from the date of the dismissal and not from the date of the knowledge of the dismissal. The High Court, therefore, rightly rejected the contentions advanced by the petitioner.
This petition is, accordingly, 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