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 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1379 of 1980, decided on 3rd March, 1981.
(On appeal from the order of High Court Lahore, dated 5‑10‑1980 in C. R. No. 1421 of 1979 and order dated 21‑12‑1980 of this Court in this regard).
‑
‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑Restoration of petition‑Statement made by Advocate‑on‑Record belying ground urged in support of application, sufficient cause, held, not made out for non‑appearance by petitioner or any one on his behalf‑Application for restoration dismissed.
Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record and Farooq Bedar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
‑The petitioner seeks re‑admission of C.P.S.L.A. No. 1379 of 1980 which was dismissed on 21st December, 1980 for the reason that neither the petitioner nor his counsel had cared to appear in Court when the petition was called out for hearing at 11.55 a.m. on that day.
In support of the application, Mr. Farooq Bedar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the non‑representation of the case was due to the reason that Shaikh Abdul Karim, learned Advocate‑on‑Record, was ill on 21st December, 1980, and he himself "had also no knowledge of the date of hearing, as, it is through the Advocate‑on‑Record only that the counsel receives intimation."
Sheikh Abdul Karim, learned Advocate‑on‑Record is present in Court, and he stated that no doubt he was ill on 21st December, 1980 but before that date he had personally informed the clerk of the, learned counsel Mr. Farooq Bedar, who is present in Court, that the petition was fixed for hearing on 21st December, 1980 and, in reply, the clerk had told him that he would do the needful.
Mr. Farooq Bedar takes exception to the statement made by Shaikh Abdul Karim. It is regrettable that there should be such contradiction between the statements of the two learned counsel. It is however not necessary to decide which either of the two is the correct statement, for, it would suffice for the purpose of this application that since the statement made by Shaikh Abdul Karim learned Advocate‑on‑Record belies the ground urged in support of the application, sufficient cause for non‑appearance by the petitioner or by any one on his behalf has not been made, and the application is therefore dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer