Mian MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (IND.) AND ANOTHER
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a civil miscellaneous petition seeking the restoration of a civil review petition that was previously dismissed for default due to non-appearance. The core legal question is whether the withdrawal of an Advocate-on-Record without following the prescribed procedural rules constitutes a sufficient ground for restoring a dismissed petition and absolves the petitioner from appearing at the hearing. The court held that since the Advocate-on-Record had not officially withdrawn in accordance with the applicable rules, the responsibility to appear remained with the counsel and no separate intimation was required to be sent to the petitioner, rendering the restoration application groundless. The court accordingly dismissed the petition and directed the office to strictly adhere to the rules in future filings. The key principle laid down is that an unprocedural or non-compliant cessation of representation by an Advocate-on-Record does not excuse default of appearance or furnish a valid ground for restoring a dismissed petition.
- Does the withdrawal of an Advocate-on-Record furnish a sufficient ground to restore a petition dismissed for default if the withdrawal was not made in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules, 1966?
- Is a separate intimation of the date of hearing required to be sent to a petitioner when their Advocate-on-Record has failed to properly withdraw from the case?
- Can an application for restoration of a dismissed review petition be entertained in disregard of the procedural rules?
- Rule 23, Order IV, Supreme Court Rules 1966
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-As no one was present on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Review Petition No, 26-R of 1979, it was dismissed for default on 5th of December, 1979. The petitioner has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Petition No, 190-R of 1979 seeking its restoration on the ground that as his Advocate-on-Record had withdrawn from the case, he has no knowledge of the date of hearing and, therefore he did not appeal to prosecute it on that date. We examined the record to ascertain if the Advocate-on-Record had in fact withdrawn from the case in accordance with rule 23, Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, but this is not so and, accordingly, it was his responsibility to appear on the date and no separate intimation of the date of hearing was required to be sent to the petitioner. This ground, therefore, fails. However, we would also observe here that the office should not have entertained this application in disregard of the rules and in future case should be taken to avoid such repetition.
2. ' Accordingly the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.