Azmat Towellers (Pvt.) Ltd, Multan vs Khalid Anwar and others
This matter concerns an application for the restoration of a petition that was previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner sought restoration, claiming their counsel was present in court but briefly stepped out when the case was called. Upon review, the Court found no evidentiary support for this claim, noting the absence of an affidavit from the counsel and the lack of any record of presence by the Court Associate. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the primary responsibility of the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The Court held that the AOR bears the fundamental duty to ensure representation and attend to proceedings, a responsibility that is not absolved by the engagement of an Advocate Supreme Court (ASC). Because the AOR failed to appear on the date of dismissal and provided no justification for such absence, the Court affirmed that the application lacked merit. The principle laid down is that the AOR is primarily responsible for the conduct and representation of a case, and failure to attend without valid justification warrants the dismissal of restoration applications.
- Does the engagement of an Advocate Supreme Court (ASC) absolve the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) of the responsibility to attend court proceedings?
- What is the primary responsibility of an Advocate-on-Record under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980?
- Can a restoration application be granted when the Advocate-on-Record fails to provide a valid justification for their absence on the date of dismissal?
- Order I Rule 2, Supreme Court Rules 1980
- Order IV Rule 2, Supreme Court Rules 1980
- Order IV Rule 6, Supreme Court Rules 1980
- Order IV Rule 15, Supreme Court Rules 1980
- Order IV Rule 22, Supreme Court Rules 1980
- Order IV Rule 26, Supreme Court Rules 1980
- Order IV Rule 30, Supreme Court Rules 1980
- Order IV Rule 31, Supreme Court Rules 1980
- Order IV Rule 32, Supreme Court Rules 1980
ORDER
SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.---This is an application for restoration of the titled petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 06.10.2021. The order of dismissal of the petition records that no one tendered appearance on behalf of the petitioner, the learned AOR or the learned counsel for the petitioner on the said date.
2. The ground for restoration in the instant application is that the learned counsel for the petitioner was present in Court but had stepped out to the wash-room and by the time he returned the case had been dismissed for non-prosecution.
3. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner is not present and the learned AOR has made the above submission. We have examined the record of the case and have noticed that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not sworn an affidavit to certify the above facts. Additionally, the record of the Court Associate for 06.10.2021 does not reflect that the learned counsel or any representative of petitioner was present in court that day. No request was made by the learned counsel for restoring the case after he returned to the court-room that day and no such ground has been pleaded in the instant application. The restoration application also does not give any excuse or justification for the absence of the representative of the petitioner company or the learned AOR. We have recently held in Falah ud Din[1] that "the AOR is defined as an Advocate, who is to act and plead for a party in the Supreme Court. The definition of "party" also includes an AOR, when such a party is represented by the AOR. Rule 2 of Order IV states that the AOR is entitled to appear and plead before the Court on signing his respective roll. Rule 6 of the said Order provides that no Advocate other than AOR shall appear and plead on behalf of the party unless he is instructed by the AOR while Rule 15 states that no Advocate other than AOR shall be entitled to act on behalf of a party in any proceedings in the Court. Rules 22 and 26 underline that every AOR on submission of his power of attorney shall act on behalf of the party and that no person having an AOR shall be heard in person except with specific leave of the Court." Order I, Rule-2 and Order IV, Rules 2, 6, 15, 22, 26, 30, 31 and 32 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 ("Rules") clearly show that the principal responsibility under the Rules to act, appear and plead on behalf of the party is that of the AOR. It is the AOR who engages the ASC and it is on instructions of the AOR that such ASC pleads the case of the party. Engagement of the ASC does not absolve the AOR of his primary responsibility to attend to the case on behalf of the party before the Court and in case the ASC is not available, it is the responsibility of the AOR to appear and plead the case of the party.
4. In the present case, the learned AOR did not appear on the date when the case was dismissed for non-prosecution and there is no reason given in the instant application for his absence. A case before any court, in particular, before the highest court of the land, ought to be attended to with utmost responsibility and seriousness. The concept of enrolling the AOR at the Supreme Court is to ensure that cases filed in the Supreme Court are handled with meticulous care and responsibility and to ensure certainty of representation before the Court. In this case, it is more than evident that the learned AOR has fallen short of his responsibility expected of him under the Rules. He has not even bothered to furnish any explanation in the instant application regarding his absence on the fateful day.
5. For the above reasons, we find that there is no merit in the instant application, which is, therefore, dismissed.
[1]PLD 2021 SC 940.