MUHAMMAD UMAR SAEED Versus GOVERNMENT F WEST PAKISTAN
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an appeal filed by the appellant, Muhammad Umar Saeed, against the Government of West Pakistan. The proceedings were scheduled for hearing, but the appellant's counsel, Mr. Nemat Khan, submitted a telegraphic request for an adjournment citing sickness. The Court observed that while it might have considered the request for adjournment due to the counsel's illness, there was no justification provided for the absence of the Advocate-on-Record, Sh. Abdul Karim. Furthermore, the Court noted that with only three appeals fixed for the day and none capable of being heard due to the default of appearance by the respective counsel, there was no business to occupy the Court's time. Consequently, expressing dissatisfaction with the state of affairs regarding the lack of professional diligence, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs. The judgment serves as a reminder of the necessity for proper representation and the consequences of failing to appear before the Court.
- Can an appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution when the counsel fails to appear?
- Does the absence of an Advocate-on-Record justify the dismissal of an appeal despite a telegraphic adjournment request from the lead counsel?
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C. J. ‑A telegraphic request for adjournment has been made by Mr. Nemat Khan, counsel for the appellant, on ground of sickness. We might have acceded to the request, but there is no, justification for the absence of Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for the appellant.
2. Only three appeals are fixed for today and none of them can be taken up for disposal for default of appearance by the counsel. There is thus no work to keep the Court occupied, for today. This indeed is a sad state of affairs.
3. The appeal is, in the circumstances, dismissed for non‑prosecution with no order as to costs.
4. Appeal dismissed.