Pakistan Case Law
2022 PLD Supreme Court 247

Crescent Textile Mills Ltd., Haripur vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2022 PLD Supreme Court 247
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No. 4899 of 2018
Date2022-02-14
Judge(s)Umar Ata Bandial, C.J. Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Ayesha A. Malik
Authored byUmar Ata Bandial
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition filed by Crescent Textile Mills Ltd., Haripur against the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question concerns the handling of repeated requests for adjournment by the petitioner's counsel without sufficient justification or medical evidence on record. The Supreme Court held that where a matter has been repeatedly adjourned on previous dates of hearing due to the unavailability of the petitioner's counsel and no medical certificate is provided to substantiate the current illness, and the Advocate-on-Record lacks instructions and is unprepared, the court is not inclined to grant further adjournments. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. The key principle laid down is that repeated unjustified adjournments sought by counsel without supporting evidence, leaving the associated advocate uninstructed, warrant the dismissal of the petition for non-prosecution.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the petitioner's counsel repeatedly seeks adjournments without providing a medical certificate?
  • Is an Advocate-on-Record who lacks instructions and is unprepared to argue the case entitled to an adjournment when prior adjournments were already granted on the counsel's request?
adjournmentdismissal for non-prosecutionSupreme Court of Pakistanunprepared counselabsence of medical certificate

ORDER

UMAR ATA BANDIAL, C.J.---There is a request for adjournment by the learned counsel for the petitioner who is not feeling well. The matter was twice adjourned on his request on 13.10.2021 and on 12.11.2021. There is no medical certificate available on record. to indicate his present illness.

2. The learned AOR submits that the application for adjournment was filed directly by the learned counsel.

Consequently , he has no instructions in the matter and is not prepared with arguments in the case. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to adjourn this matter as it has not progressed for three successive dates of hearing on account of the unavailability of the learned counsel for the petitioner . The petition is, accordingly , dismissed for non-prosecution.

3. In order that the matter comes to the attention of the learned Members of the Bar this order shall be reported on the website.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.