MUHAMMAD ALI ALIAS PAGLA Versus THE STATE
ORDER
Facts giving rise to this civil revision are that the petitioner, Karim Ahmad Siddiqui, filed an appeal against the respondent, Abdul Hamid, which was dismissed in default on 8th January, 1990. The petitioner made an application for restoration of the appeal stating that he had come to the Court on the said date but left it as he had severe headache. As for his counsel, it was stated by him that he was out of station .His explanation did not find favour with the learned Additional District Judge, who dismissed the appeal, and, therefore, his application was rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed on his application, the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.
2. No medical certificate supporting his averment of severe headache has been produced by the petitioner. Even if he had it, it was a minor ailment and the petitioner should have not left the Court, if he had gone there, especially when his counsel was out of station. Admittedly, he did not inform the learned Additional District Judge about his trouble before leaving the Court. According to the learned counsel, he brought his difficulty to the notice of the Reader of the learned Additional District judge but this has not been stated in'. the application for restoration of the appeal. His plea in this regard, therefore. appears to be afterthought. Further, there is no evidence or affidavit of the Reader in support of his assertion. It is. also noteworthy that the application fur restoration of the appeal was made after 12 days of the dismissal of the appeal. No explanation for this delay has been offered. If the petitioner was present o.. the date when the appeal was dismissed in default, he should have been quick in seeking its restoration but he acted otherwise. In view of all this, I am not impressed by the explanation tendered by the petitioner for his absence which resulted in the dismissal of his appeal for want of prosecution.
3. In view of the above discussion, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Additional District Judge by which he had refused to restore the petitioner's appeal, and dismiss this civil revision in limine.
M.BA./K‑23/L Petition dismissed.