Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1143 of 1983, decided on 30th July, 1986.
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 29‑5‑1983 passed in Civil Revision No. 848 of 1982).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XVII, Rr.1 & 2‑‑Request for adjournment, refusal of‑‑Conduct of a party or their Counsel‑‑Relevancy of‑‑Plea that request for adjournment made by sister of petitioner was rejected on extraneous consideration that earlier too petitioner‑side had been absenting themselves, repelled‑‑It was not an extraneous consideration for Court to note conduct of a party or their counsel when granting or refusing a request for adjournment‑‑Impugned order not being open to interference, leave to appeal refused.
M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
M. Siddiq Ch., Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
Date of hearing: 30th July, 1986.
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 29th of May, 1983, of the High Court; whereby an application made by the petitioner for restoration of his civil revision petition which had earlier been dismissed for default, was dismissed.
Two grounds were raised before the High Court: One, the main petition was not fixed for hearing for 29th of May, 1983, when it was dismissed for non‑prosecution; and two, that the learned counsel for the petitioner had made an application for general adjournment which could not be put up before the Court on account of manoeuvring by the ministerial staff at the instance of the other party. Both the contentions were found incorrect. The application for restoration of the revision was accordingly dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been unable to controvert the position that there was no factual basis for the contentions raised before the High Court. He, however, raised a new point, namely, that a request for adjournment made by the sister of the petitioner on 23rd May, 1983, when the Revision Petition was dismissed for non‑prosecution, was rejected on extraneous consideration that earlier too the petitioner‑side had been absenting themselves.
We do not agree with the learned counsel that it was an extraneous consideration for the Court to note the conduct of a party or their counsel when granting or refusing a request for adjournment.
No ground has been made out for interference. Leave to appeal accordingly, is refused.
M. I. Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer