GHULAM QADIR vs J.AHANGIR AND Other
This matter concerns an application for the restoration of a criminal petition that was previously dismissed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan for non-prosecution. The petitioner's criminal petition had been dismissed because neither the petitioner nor their counsel appeared when the case was called for hearing. In the restoration application, the Advocate-on-Record contended that they were delayed due to being stuck at a railway crossing while traveling to Islamabad, preventing their timely arrival at the court. The Supreme Court examined the sufficiency of this explanation and noted that the Advocate-on-Record admitted they were not prepared to argue the case on the date of dismissal, nor were they prepared to argue it at the time of the restoration application. The Court held that the explanation provided for the absence was insufficient and that, regardless of the delay, the lack of preparedness to argue the case rendered the appearance inconsequential. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for restoration, affirming that non-prosecution due to lack of preparedness and insufficient cause for absence warrants the dismissal of the restoration request.
- Is a delay caused by a railway crossing sufficient grounds to restore a petition dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Does the lack of preparedness to argue a case on the date of hearing justify the refusal to restore a dismissed petition?
- Can a petition be restored if the counsel admits they were not prepared to argue the case on the date it was dismissed?
ORDER
1. M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-This is an application seeking restoration of the petitioner's Criminal Petition No. 172-R of 1982 which had been dismissed on 27-3-1983 for non-prosecution as neither the petitioner nor his counsel had appeared until 1-15 p.m. That day. Even the Advocate-on-Record of the petitioner was not present when the case had been called. In this application made by the learned Advocate-on-Record, the ground taken is that he had gone to Islamabad with a view to- return in time before the case was called at 1-00 p.m. But that he got detained at a railway crossing with the result that when he reached the court, the case had already been dismissed. The learned Advocate-on-Record admits that be was not prepared to argue the case himself on 27-3-1983 nor is he ready to do so even today. That being so, his appearance, even if made on that date, would not have made any difference. Even otherwise, the cause shown is not sufficient. The application is dismissed.