GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MAJOR RAB NAWAZ
This matter concerns an application for the re-admission of a Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal that had been dismissed due to the non-appearance of the petitioner and their counsel at the scheduled hearing. The petitioner sought restoration, attributing the absence to the illness of the Advocate-on-Record and a lack of knowledge regarding the hearing date by the arguing counsel. During the proceedings, the Advocate-on-Record contradicted the petitioner's assertion, stating that he had previously informed the clerk of the arguing counsel about the fixed date. The Supreme Court observed a direct contradiction between the statements of the two legal representatives. The Court held that because the statement of the Advocate-on-Record effectively refuted the grounds presented by the petitioner to justify the absence, the petitioner failed to establish 'sufficient cause' for the non-appearance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for re-admission, emphasizing that contradictory representations regarding the failure to appear do not satisfy the requirement for demonstrating sufficient cause to restore a dismissed petition.
- Does a contradiction between the statements of an Advocate-on-Record and an arguing counsel regarding notice of a hearing date constitute sufficient cause for re-admission of a dismissed petition?
- Is the failure of counsel to appear at a scheduled hearing sufficient grounds for the dismissal of a Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J-The petitioner seeks re-admission of C.P.S.L.A. No. 1379 of 1980 which was dismissed on 21st December, 1980 for the reason that neither the petitioner nor his counsel had cared to appear in Court when the petition was called out for hearing at 11.55 a.m. On that day.
2. In support of the application, Mr. Farooq Bedar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the non-representation of the case was due to the reason that Shaikh Abdul Karim, learned Advocate- on-Record, was ill on 21st December, 1980, and he himself "had also no knowledge of the date of hearing, as, it is through the Advocate-on-Record only that the counsel receives intimation."
3. Sheikh Abdul Karim, learned Advocate-on-Record is present in Court, and he stated that no doubt he was ill on 21st December, 1980 but before that date he had personally informed the clerk of the, learned counsel Mr. Farooq Bedar, who is present in Court, that the petition was fixed for hearing on 21st December, 1980 and, in reply, the clerk had told him that he would do the needful.
4. Mr. Farooq Bedar takes exception to the statement made by Shaikh Abdul Karim. It is regrettable that there should be such contradiction between the statements of the two learned counsel. It is however not necessary to decide which either of the two is the correct statement, for, it would suffice for the purpose of this application that since the statement made by Shaikh Abdul Karim learned Advocate-on-Record belies the ground urged in support of the application, sufficient cause for non-appearance by the petitioner or by any one on his behalf has not been made, and the application is therefore dismissed.