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 Review Petition No. K‑2 of 1980, decided on 28th November, 1983.
----O. XXVI, r. 1‑Review‑‑Case called out but none present for peti tioner‑Counsel for petitioner aware of date of hearing‑Review petition already adjourned for four times on request of petitioner's counsel Case, held, not fit for further adjournment particularly when none had appeared‑Adjournment application received by post one hour after announcement of dismissal of petition‑Held further, in view of dismissal order, already passed such belated application was of no avail to applicant.
Nemo for Petitioners.
Imam Ali Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 28th November, 1983.
The case has been called out. None is present for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent is however, present. He states that the learned Advocate‑on‑Record and the learned counsel for the petitioners are aware of today's hearing. It is also apparent from their application for adjournment and hearing at Karachi, which w rejected by H. C. J on 19‑11‑1983 with the following order :‑
"As the availability of this particular Bench cannot be ensured at Karachi, it was, therefore, that this matter was ordered to be fixed here. Accordingly it will not be possible to adjourn the case which has already been l1sted for hearing".
Earlier too this petition was adjourned on four occasions on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not a fit case for further adjournment particularly when none has appeared today, till 10 a.m. It is accordingly dismissed for non‑prosecution.
It is not necessary to puss any separate orders on the reference received in this Court. The questions raised therein have to be determined in accor dance with the earlier final judgment of this Court.
Before parting with this order it needs to be noted that after about an hour of the announcement of .the foregoing order another application for adjournment was received by post. In view of what has been ordered above, this belated application is of no avail to the applicant.
M. Z. M. Application dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer