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. 126 of 1974, decided on 19th November 1975.'
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 21‑11‑1973, in Writ petitioner No. 732‑R of 1972).
‑‑ Duty of counsel and litigants‑Counsel and Advocate‑on‑Record filing affidavits stating to have suddenly fallen ill No--reason to doubt such statement but Advocate‑on‑Record much less petitioners not absolved of their obligation to appear‑Advocate‑on‑Record falling ill a day earlier but not arranging to inform Court in tine, petitioners filing no affidavit of their own, application liable to the dismissal‑Briefing Advocate‑on‑ Record‑Does not absolve parties of their obligation to appear and to ensure proper conduct of case.
‑‑ S. 1(4) & Sched.‑ Divisibility of evacuee house‑Not open to question in writ jurisdiction ‑[Writ].
A. R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kh. Wali Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 19th November 1975.
This is a miscellaneous application for Use restoration of CPSLA No. 126 of 1974 which was dismissed on the 28th June 1974 for non‑prosecution.
Restoration of the petition is sought on the ground that on that date the A. O. R. and counsel engaged to appear in the case were bona taken However, the application was neither supported by an affidavit nor medical certificate. Therefore, on a request by counsel the consideration of the application was adjourned on the 28th .July. 1974 to enable him to file an affidavit or a medical certificate.
Learned counsel and A.O.R for the petitioners have both filed affidavits to say that they were suddenly taken ill on 28-6-1974 and 27-6-1974 respectively and therefore could appear. There is no reason to doubt that statement. It however, does not, absolve the Advocate-on-Record much less the petitioners of their obligation to appear. The Advocate-on-Record according to his affidavit fell ill a day earlier but he made on arrangement to inform the Court in time. No affidavit is, tiled by petitioner to have briefed A.O. R. did not absolve them of their obligation to appear and to ensure that their case is properly conducted.
Incidentally we also allowed learned counsel to address us on the merits of the case the dispute concerns the divisibility of evacuee house No I-S/3 Block No.15, Sargodha which the Settlement Authority ultimately held to be divisible. This was unsuccessfully called in question in the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The law is now well-settled that the divisibility of evacuee house for the purpose of it transfer under Act 28 of 1958 is not open to question in the High Court in, fits writ jurisdiction.
However, that may be, the application for restoration is dismissed to failure of the; Advocate‑on‑Record and the petitioners to appear on 28‑6-1974.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer