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.
Revision Petition No. KI‑160 of 1984, decided on 6th August, 1984.
‑‑‑Ss. 36 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Refusal to grant adjourn ment‑‑Adjournments allowed at request of party even on payment of costs and again adjournment granted as a last opportunity‑‑Still another request made for ad4ournment on grounds that counsel had missed the plane‑‑Counsel himself negligent in reaching airport in time‑‑Refusal by Labour Court to grant further adjournment, in circumstances, held, not un-judicious and interference in revision refused by Appellate Tribunal.
Mian Irshad Ali for Petitioner.
Syed Zulfiqar Haider for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 29th July, 1984.
The above captioned revision gives information that the order, dated 3‑5‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan refusing to grant adjournment is wrong and illegal.
2. On 9‑2‑1984 evidence of two witnesses of the petitioner was recorded and the case was adjourned to 18‑3‑1984 for the remaining evidence. The case was adjourned on 18‑3‑1984 to 8‑4‑1984 on payment of Rs.50 as costs on the request of the petitioner. No evidence was produced on the adjourned date and the request of adjourment was granted and the case was further adjourned to 3‑5‑1984 at the request of the petitioner as a last opportunity. On the above adjournment date the learned counsel for the petitioner was absent. On 3‑5‑1984 again the learned counsel was not present and a request was made for adjourn ment. The reason was that the learned counsel had missed the plane. The learned lower Court did not consider this ground as correct as obviously the plane was missed as the learned counsel could not reach the airport in time. The learned lower Court is correct in saying that the learned counsel did not exercise care and thus was guilty of negligence. Since last opportunity had been afforded and once the case had been adjourned on payment of costs, the learned counsel should have been careful enough to attend the Court. At the time of admission of the revision it was argued that the learned counsel could get seat in the plane but in reality he missed the plane. No good ground was shown so refusal to grant further adjournment was not un-judicious. Sufficient indulgence had been shown by the learned Court below.
3. As a result, the revision is dismissed.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer