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 Leave to Appeal No. 62‑R of 1983, decided on 25th October, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 22‑1‑83 passed in C. M. 15/83 W. P. 604‑S/79).
‑‑ Arts. 185(3) & 199‑Petitioner's writ petition dismissed by High Court, for non‑appearance and application for its restoration also reject ed‑Judgment of High Court showing that on date of hearing neither petitioner nor his counsel entering appearance; that on earlier date also position being same but in interest of justice case adjourned to another date with notice to petitioner and his counsel‑Conduct of petitioner showing that due diligence was not exercised to follow writ petition Leave to appeal refused.
Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Karam E Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 25th October, 1983.
This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 12‑1‑1983 passed in C. M. 15 of 1983 in Writ Petition 604/S/79.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that the petitioner had submitted an application for the restoration of the writ petition within the prescribed period but the learned Judges have ignored the reasons stated therein; that the none appearance of the petitioner's counsel on the date of hearing was caused on account of his professional engagement at Lahore while no notice from the Court was served upon the petitioner despite a direction of the Court on the previous date that the case should be re‑enlisted after notice to the parties and counsel and thus non‑service of any notice issued by the office of the Lahore High Court on the petitioner was by itself a sufficient ground for the restoration of the writ petition; that the law favours decision of the cases on merit and the petitioner's writ petition involved serious and important questions of law, it should not have been dismissed in default and its restoration should not have been refused to the petitioner; that the petitioner's counsel had duly informed the High Court that since he would be busy at Lahore, he would not be able to attend the case at Rawalpindi.
3. We have gone through the judgment of the Lahore High Court which shows that on the date, neither the petitioner nor his counsel had entered appearance; that earlier on 29‑11‑1982 also the position was the same but in the interest of justice the case was adjourned to 19‑12‑1982 with notices to the petitioner as well as to his counsel. The learned Judges remarked.
"All this reveals that the petitioner and his learned counsel have not been taking due interest in the prosecution of the petition despite the assurance given by them on 3‑7‑1979 when the petition was restored after its dismissal for want of prosecution..."
This conduct of the petitioner would show that there was no due diligence exercised to follow the writ petition. Hence, we find this petition to be without merit and the same is, consequently, dismissed.
S. Q. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer