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 Appeal No. 47 of 1970, decided on 30th October 1975.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 10th November 1967, in Writ Petition No. 3033‑8 of 1962).
‑‑ O. XVII, r. 1‑Adjournment‑Practice and procedure‑‑‑Duty of counsel‑Asking for adjournment of case by telephonic message through an advocate‑on‑Record‑Most discourteous on part of counsel.‑‑[Adjournment‑Practice and procedure].
--- O. XVII, r. I‑Adjournment‑Neither appellant nor his counsel present An Advocate‑on‑Record stating to have received a telephonic message from counsel asking for adjournment but Advo cate‑on‑Record for appellant absent‑Respondent also not present Adjournment disallowed and appeal dismissed for non‑prosecution.‑ [Adjournment].
M. Mahboob Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellants.
Maqbool Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑ on‑Record (both absent) for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 30th October. 1975.
‑Neither the appellant nor his counsel is present. Even the Advocate‑on‑Record is absent. It is stated by Khawaja Mushtaq, Advocate‑on‑Record that a telephonic message had been sent by Mr. Maqbul Elahi Malik who is to appear for the appellant that he is busy at Lahore and on (that account the hearing of the appeal be adjourned.
To say the least Mr. Maqbul Elahi has been most discourteous to this Court by asking for adjournment by a telephonic message.
In the result the appeal is dismissed for non‑prosecution. As the respondent has also not put in appearance, there will be no order as to Costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer