Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 159 of 1975, decided on 14th July 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 9-121974 in W. P. No. 152/R of 19'70).

Civil procedure Code (V of 1908)----

-- O. IX, r. 3 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-Dismissal of writ petition by High Court for non-prosecution-Omission of mention of full name of counsel for petitioners in cause list, held, sufficient cause for his absence-Writ petition ordered to be restored for hearing on merits.

Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Ch. Muhammad Farooq Senior Advocate with Muhammad Aslam,

Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Date of hearing : 14th July 1980.

-The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal of the Lahore High Court to restore their Writ Petition No. 152-R of 1970, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on the 25th of November 1971.

Notice of this petition was given to the respondents for today, and after hearing the learned counsel for both sides, we have decided to convert this petition into an appeal and to dispose it of accordingly.

It appears that the main reason for the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the 25th of November 1971, was that in the cause list of that day his name was mentioned as Abdul Majeed Khan, although his full name is Abdul Majeed Khan Lashari. The full name had been mentioned in the cause lists for the earlier days, but not so in the list for the 25th of November 1971, on which the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Another reason given by the learned Judge was that the petitioners had not complied with the order requiring them to deposit the process fee for citation in the press. It is submitted by Sh. Abdul Karim learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners, that it is the common practice of the members of the Bar to scan the cause lists of the High Court and the Supreme Court with reference to their own names appearing there in, as it is not possible for any one to remember the numbers of the cases or the names of the parties, with the result that if the full name is not shown in the cause list, then the counsel are likely to miss the same on assumption that the cases do not relate to them. He states that there is an Advocate of the name of Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, while the counsel for the petitioners was Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan Lashari. He contend that the learned Judge in the High Court was therefore, clearly unjustified in refusing to restore the writ petition, although it was clear that the counsel for the petitioners could not connect the case with his name for the date on which the writ petition was actually dismissed.

We are satisfied that the omission of the full name of Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan Lashari from the cause list 'of the 25th of November, 1971, did, indeed, constitute a sufficient cause for his absence on the said date, and the learned Judge in the High Court was in error in refusing to restore the writ petition for hearing on merits.

We would, accordingly, accept this appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court dated the 25th of November 1.971, and the 9th of December, 1974, and direct that the writ petition filed by the petitioners in the High Court be heard on merits in the presence of the parties. There will be no order as to costs.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.