ABDUL RAZZAQ vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, COLONIES, PUNJAB, LAHORE
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an appeal. The core legal question concerned whether an adjournment request, based solely on the inability of newly engaged counsel to appear, constitutes sufficient cause to prevent the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution. The Court held that the reason provided was insufficient, noting that the Advocate-on-Record had a duty to ensure counsel was engaged and prepared in a timely manner. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and recalled the interim order regarding the maintenance of status quo that had been issued previously. The principle laid down is that an adjournment request based on the unavailability of newly engaged counsel, without demonstrating sufficient cause or diligence by the Advocate-on-Record in preparing the case, does not justify delaying proceedings, and such failure to proceed warrants the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.
- Does the inability of newly engaged counsel to appear constitute sufficient cause for an adjournment?
- Can an appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution when an adjournment request is denied?
- What is the consequence of failing to provide sufficient cause for an adjournment request in the Supreme Court?
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.--When this appeal came up for hearing before us today, a telegram sent boy the learned Advocate-on-Record for the appellant, namely, Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi, was placed before us, praying in for adjournment on the ground that the newly engaged counsel could not appear today. We consider that this is not at all a sufficient reason for granting adjournment, as thee learned Advocate-on-Record should have engaged the counsel in time, and the latter should have put an appearance today, and not prayed for an adjournment without showing sufficient cause for the same. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non-- prosecution, with no orders as to costs.
2. The interim order issued by this Court on the 18th of December, 1977, as to the maintenance of status quo during the pendency of the appeal is hereby recalled.