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. K‑25 of 1970, decided on 22nd February, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated 22nd January, 1968 in, Suit No. 115 of 1966).
----O. XVII, r. 1‑Adjournment‑Appeal being one of oldest and fixed for hearing on a date after due consultation with all concerned and as such not meriting adjournment yet Advocate on Record of respondents having been appointed as Additional Advocate‑General and not having taken necessary steps to ensure proper representation on behalf of respondents and important question of law regarding jurisdiction of Pakistan Courts over a foreign Government being also involved, reasonable adjournment, held, required to enable respondents to arrange proper representation.
Sharifuddin Pirzada, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, Muhammad Makhdoom Ali Khan, Advocate of the High Court of Sind permitted to assist Sharifuddin pirzada and S. Anwar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondents.
Z. D. Magerramov, Assistant to the USSR Trade Representative in Pakistan for Respondent.
: This old appeal was specially fixed for today after consultation with the learned Advocates‑on‑Record .for both the parties but unfortunately no counsel or Advocate‑on‑Record has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, and instead Mr. Z. D. Magerramov has appeared and made a request for adjournment so as to seek further instructions from his Ambassador and his Government and to engage a counsel.
Mr. Sharifuddin Pirzada, appearing for the appellant, has opposed the request for the adjournment on the ground that this appeal has been pending in this Court for more than 10 years, and proper and timely intimation of today's hearing had been given to both the parties. He submits that the appellant has incurred considerable expense in bringing his counsel and his Assistants to Lahore for this purpose.
Ordinarily we would have been disinclined to grant an adjournment in this case, as it is one of the oldest appeals pending in this Court, and today's hearing had been fixed after due consultation with all concerned. I appears, however, that Mr. M. I. Memon, who was acting as the Advocate on‑Record for the respondents, and has since been appointed as Additional Advocate‑General of the Sind Province, did not take the necessary steps to ensure proper representation on behalf of the respondents. As an important question of law regarding the jurisdiction of the Pakistan Courts over a foreign Government is involved, we consider that it would be in the fitness of things if a reasonable adjournment is allowed so as enable the res pondents to arrange proper representation before this Court.
The matter is, accordingly, adjourned to the 14th of March, 1981, so as to be heard at Rawalpindi.
It has been made clear to Mr. Z. D. Magerramov, Assistant to the U.S.S.R. Trade Representative in Pakistan that no further adjournment shall be allowed, and in the absence of representation, the matter shall proceed ex parte against the respondents.
As the appellant has incurred considerable expense in bringing his counsel to Lahore, the respondents shall pay costs in the sum of Rs. 10,000 for this adjournment.
A copy of this order shall be transmitted immediately to the U.S.S.R. Embassy in Islamabad, as well as to the U.S.S.R. Trade Representative in Karachi. A copy shall also be sent to Mr. M. I. Memon to explain the reasons for his failure to arrange proper representation for the respondents in this case in spite of having received timely intimation about to day's hearing.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer