A. M. QURESHI vs UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC AND Another
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an old pending appeal involving an important question of law regarding the jurisdiction of Pakistani courts over a foreign government. When the case was called for hearing after due consultation with the advocates-on-record, counsel for the respondents failed to appear, and a representative of the respondent government requested an adjournment to engage new counsel and seek instructions, citing the previous advocate's appointment as Additional Advocate-General. The appellant strongly opposed the adjournment due to the long pendency of the appeal and expenses incurred. The Court, balancing the necessity of proper representation for an important jurisdictional question involving a foreign state against the delay, granted a reasonable adjournment subject to the payment of costs by the respondents, while making it clear that no further adjournments would be granted.
- Whether an adjournment should be granted when a party's Advocate-on-Record fails to arrange representation due to a change in office?
- Can costs be awarded as a condition for granting an adjournment to a foreign government?
- Under what circumstances may a matter proceed ex parte against a foreign state respondent?
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J: This old appeal was specially fixed for today after consultation with the learned Advocates-on-Record .For both the parties but unfortunately no counsel or Advocate-on- Record has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, and instead Mr. Z. D. Magerramov has appeared and made a request for adjournment so as to seek further instructions from his Ambassador and his Government and to engage a counsel.
2. Mr. Sharifuddin Pirzada, appearing for the appellant, has opposed the request for the adjournment on the ground that this appeal has been pending in this Court for more than 10 years, and proper and timely intimation of today's hearing had been given to both the parties. He submits that the appellant has incurred considerable expense in bringing his counsel and his Assistants to Lahore for this purpose.
3. Ordinarily we would have been disinclined to grant an adjournment in this case, as it is one of the oldest appeals pending in this Court, and today's hearing had been fixed after due consultation with all concerned. I appears, however, that Mr. M. I. Memon, who was acting as the Advocate --on- Record for the respondents, and has since been appointed as Additional Advocate-General of the Sind Province, did not take the necessary steps to ensure proper representation on behalf of the respondents. As an important question of law regarding the jurisdiction of the Pakistan Courts over a foreign Government is involved, we consider that it would be in the fitness of things if a reasonable adjournment is allowed so as enable the res--pondents to arrange proper representation before this Court.
4. The matter is, accordingly, adjourned to the 14th of March, 1981, so as to be heard at Rawalpindi.
5. It has been made clear to Mr. Z. D. Magerramov, Assistant to the U.S.S.R. Trade Representative in Pakistan that no further adjournment shall be allowed, and in the absence of representation, the matter shall proceed ex parte against the respondents.
6. As the appellant has incurred considerable expense in bringing his counsel to Lahore, the respondents shall pay costs in the sum of Rs. 10,000 for this adjournment.
7. A copy of this order shall be transmitted immediately to the U.S.S.R. Embassy in Islamabad, as well as to the U.S.S.R. Trade Representative in Karachi. A copy shall also be sent to Mr. M. I. Memon to explain the reasons for his failure to arrange proper representation for the respondents in this case in spite of having received timely intimation about to day's hearing.