ALLAH DIN vs DILAWAR KHAN AND Other
This matter arose from a petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan where neither the petitioner, his counsel, nor his Advocate-on-Record appeared to press the petition. Instead, a 'certificate' signed by the petitioner's counsel was delivered to the Court's Librarian via his clerk, requesting a fortnight's adjournment on the ground that the counsel's uncle had passed away. The respondents, who were present in person, objected, noting that the petitioner's counsel had previously obtained an adjournment on the last hearing date and had exhibited similar conduct in the High Court. The Supreme Court observed that while an oral request for adjournment was granted on the previous date, the counsel failed to file a formal application for adjournment on this occasion, relying instead on an informal certificate. The Court held that such a certificate cannot be treated as a formal application for adjournment. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
- Can an informal certificate sent through a clerk be treated as a formal application for adjournment by the Supreme Court?
- Whether a petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner and their counsel fail to appear and only submit an informal request for adjournment?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-It is 10-15 a.m. The case has been called out. Neither the petitioner, nor his counsel nor the A. O. R. Nor any one on behalf of the counsel or the A. O. R. Has appeared to press the petition while Dilawar and Muhammad Bashir respondents are present in person. The Court Associate, has however, handed to us a "certificate" which he informed us, has been given to the Court's Librarian by the Munshi of the petitioner's counsel. It reads as follows: - "Certified that uncle of the undersigned counsel is dead today at Rawalpindi, hence undersigned is unable to attend the Court today 9-6-1982, request for fortnight adjournment."
(Sd.)
Capt. Ch. Habibullah Khan The above-named respondent pointed out that even on the last date of hearing the petitioner's counsel had obtained as adjournment and that this bad been his conduct throughout in the proceedings before the High Court.
2. We notice that the petitioner' counsel had, indeed, obtained a week's adjournment on the last date of hearing (i. e. On 31-5-1982) on an oral request made by him. But this time he has not even bothered to make a forma application for an adjournment and has considered it sufficient to send a certificate' through his munshi. We are afraid we cannot treat his certificate as an application for adjournment and are constrained to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution, Ordered accordingly.