Mehtab Publication (Pvt.) Ltd vs Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory
This matter concerns an application for the restoration of a civil petition that was previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner sought restoration on the grounds that neither the petitioner nor their counsel received notification regarding the case's fixation date. The Supreme Court examined the procedural requirements for notifying parties of case fixation, noting that under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, the official method involves supplying the cause list to the Advocate-on-Record (AOR), while notices are served to petitioners-in-person. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that this established procedure was breached or that the cause list was absent. Furthermore, the application lacked an affidavit from the AOR to substantiate the claim of non-notification, and failed to explain why the AOR, who is responsible for the case, did not appear. Consequently, the Court found no sufficient grounds to restore the petition and dismissed the application, emphasizing that the burden lies on the applicant to prove procedural failure when seeking restoration of a dismissed matter.
- What is the official procedure for notifying counsel regarding the fixation of a case in the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- Is an application for restoration of a petition dismissed for non-prosecution maintainable without an affidavit from the Advocate-on-Record?
- Does the failure of an Advocate-on-Record to inform a client of a hearing date constitute sufficient ground for restoration of a dismissed petition?
- Order IV Rule 19, Supreme Court Rules 1980
- Order III Rule 9, 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 04.10.2022. The sole ground taken in the application is that the petitioner, as well as, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not receive any information regarding the fixation of the case on 04.10.2022.
2. It is clarified that the process of informing the Advocates regarding fixation of case is through the supply of the cause list to the respective Advocate-on-Records (AORs) under Order IV, Rule 19 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 ("Rules"). Otherwise, informally as a matter of tradition and by way of standing practice, the cause lists are also put up in the Bar Rooms and SMS messages are also sent to the learned Advocates by the Court. However, the procedure covered by the Rules is the supply of cause list to the AORs. In case of a petitioner in person, notices are served to the petitioner under Order III, Rule 9 of the Rules.
3. The instant application does not agitate that the above procedure was not followed. In addition, copy of the cause list has not been placed on record to show that the case or the name of learned counsel did not appear therein. Further, the application states that the AOR failed to inform the learned counsel, as well as, the petitioner about fixation of the case, however, it does not furnish any reason as to why the AOR, who had knowledge of the fixation of the case, failed to appear in the case himself. There is no affidavit filed by the AOR affirming the facts mentioned in the application.
4. For the above reasons, there is no sufficient ground for allowing the titled application, which is accordingly dismissed.