MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAHIM YAR
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the restoration of a service appeal. The petitioner's original service appeal had been dismissed by the Tribunal due to the failure to deposit the requisite process fee. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a civil miscellaneous application seeking restoration, claiming ignorance of the Tribunal's procedural requirements regarding fee deposits. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a litigant, represented by counsel, can cite ignorance of procedural directions as a valid ground for restoring an appeal dismissed for non-compliance. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the restoration application by the Tribunal was correct and unexceptionable. The Court reasoned that since the petitioner was represented by a learned counsel, the responsibility for complying with the Tribunal's directions rested with the legal representative. Consequently, the failure to comply with procedural orders cannot be excused on the grounds of the client's alleged lack of awareness, leading the Court to dismiss the petition and refuse leave to appeal.
- Can a litigant seek restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-payment of process fee based on ignorance of procedural requirements?
- Does the failure of a counsel to inform a client about procedural directions constitute a valid ground for restoring an appeal dismissed for non-compliance?
- Is a litigant bound by the procedural defaults of their legal counsel in service tribunal proceedings?
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment, dated 23- 7-2003, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeal No,2021 of 2002.
2. The service appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal on 11-10-2002 for failure to deposit the process fee. Therefore, the petitioner moved Civil Miscellaneous No,495 of 2003 on 21- 6-2003 for restoration of the appeal on the ground that he was prepared to deposit the process fee. The Tribunal dismissed the same by the impugned order, dated 23-7-2003.
3. The learned counsel argued that the petitioner was not aware of the procedure of the Tribunal' for the deposit of the fee and the directions given in that regard. We find that the appeal was filed by the petitioner through a learned counsel. Therefore, the compliance of the directions could not be avoided even if the learned counsel then appearing before the Tribunal had not informed the petitioner. The impugned order of the Tribunal is unexceptionable.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly .