Find a Lawyer

Regular Second Appeal No. 776 of 1978 and Civil Miscellaneous No. 2269/C of 1981, decided on 27th October, 1981.

‑‑O. XLI, r. 19‑Non‑appearance on date of hearing‑Sufficient cause for‑Appeal adjourned to 15th June. 1981 on request of applicant's (Government) counsel‑Applicant's counsel not appearing on such date despite intimation sent to office of Advocate General and neither counsel nor any law officer appearing even to make a request for adjournment‑Contention that case not appear ing in regular cause list, supplementary list not supplied to counsel and on that list his name not mentioned against entry of appeal Held, omission to note case in cause list no ground for condoning default of non‑appearance‑Further held, such plea cannot be accepted in circumstances as date was given to applicant's counsel at his own request.

In adjudication of civil matters Government is not entitled to any preferential treatment as against the ordinary citizens and any negligence in prosecution, of the appeal cannot be brushed aside. omission to note a case in the cause list is not a ground for condoning the default nonappearance, Moreover this plea cannot be accepted in this case as the date was given to the learned counsel for the applicant at his own request.

‑‑O. XLI, r. 19‑Appeal, restoration of‑Number of appeal ands''' names of parties correctly appearing in supplementary cause list‑ t'' Plea that name of counsel not included in cause list, held. does not furnish a sufficient cause for non‑appearance.

Abdul Shahid and others v. Azam Bakhsh P L D 1981 S C 200 ref.

Khalid Ahmad for Applicant.

A. H. Najfi and Malik Rahmat Ali for Respondent.

This is an application for restoration of the second appeal dismissed for non‑prosecution on 15th June, 1981 as no one bad appeared on behalf of the Punjab Province despite intimation to the office of the Advocate General. .

The plea taken in this application is that on 11th June, 1981 the cause list was provided for the next week which was checked by the counsel personally, but as the case was not included in the cause list for 15th June, 1981, the counsel believed that the case will not be heard on the said date. It was further explained that the supplementary list in which the case appeared was not provided to the learned counsel and moreover on that list name of the counsel was not mentioned against the entry of the ' said appeal.

This application was resisted strenuously by the respondent and it was pleaded that the appeal was adjourned on 8th June, 1981 to 15th June, 1981 .at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, so an actual date was given on his request and the cases which are fixed for actual date in the presence of the parties are taken up on the fixed date irrespective of the appearance or non‑appearance of the case in the daily cause list. It was further asserted that in view of aforesaid practice the learned counsel should have at least enquired about the case from the Court from 8,00 a.m. to 1‑00 p.m. on 15th June, 1981 but the learned counsel failed to do so and despite intimation sent to the office of the Advocate‑General neither the counsel nor any Law Officer appeared even to make a request for adjournment of the case. Learned counsel for the respondent also referred to the earlier orders passed on 18th March, 1981 and 24th May, 1981 to show the past negligent conduct in prosecuting the appeal.

It is well settled that in adjudication of civil matters. Government is not entitled to any preferential treatment as against the ordinary citizens and any negligence in prosecution of the appeal cannot be brushed aside. It is also equally established that omission to note a case in the cause list is not a ground for condoning the default of non‑appearance. Moreover this plea cannot be accepted in this case as the date was given to the learned counsel for the applicant at his own request. The case was a adjourned on 8th June, 1981 and in routine his case was to appear only in the supplementary cause list as by that time the weekly cause list would have been completed and prepared. Once it is admitted that number of the appeal and the names of the parties correctly appeared in the supplementary cause list, the other plea that the name of the learned counsel was not included in the list, would not furnish a sufficient cause or non appearance on the date of hearing. Reference may be made to Abdul Shahid and others v. Azim Bakhsh (P L D 1981 S C 200) wherein the learned Judges of the Supreme Court upheld the order refusing restoration of appeal dismissed in default as the appellant and the counsel were not vigilant in prosecuting the appeal.

For all the above reasons no case has been made out for restoration of the appeal. This application is, therefore, dismissed with costs.

K M. A. Application dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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