AIX, Rr 8, 9 Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 Council and client filed for non-prosecution Reinstatement High court appeals suit dismissed by the plaintiff, dismissed for illegal prosecution The plaintiff moved the request for restitution of the case, which was dismissed, the suit was dismissed by a single High Court judge on the ground that the counsel appearing for the plaintiff on his hearing dates A personal affidavit was not filed to explain the absence that it was observed that the negligence of the party justified the justification. There was no justifiable reason to cry, no doubt it was the duty of the litigant to pursue the matter diligently, but perhaps one should not neglect the fact that a party usually relies on it. Is. For the purpose of keeping an eye on the case where the lawyer would be negligent, the court overruled any order, and charged a heavy price, however, where there was an absence of sufficient explanation, the court decided on the merits. In favor of making a relatively lenient attitude, in the present case the plaintiff's lawyer was admitted to the hospital, and later she became ill, which was in fact sufficient for arbitrary rehabilitation. If such a fact was known to the fact or brought to the notice of the High Court Judge, the order could have been different. The order of impeachment was set aside and the matter was restored to its original position and the plaintiff was presented before the single. Was instructed to appear. The judge, however, is subject to payment of the price
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
