REHMATULLAH Versus NISAR AHMAD
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a civil appeal. The core legal question concerned the consequences of the repeated absence of counsel for the appellant, which resulted in the inability of the Court to proceed with the scheduled hearing. The appellant's lead counsel requested an adjournment via telegram due to a personal engagement in another city, while the Advocate-on-Record for the appellant was also absent without justification. The Court expressed strong disapproval of this conduct, noting that it was part of a broader pattern where multiple appeals fixed for the day could not be heard due to the absence of appellants' counsel, leaving the Court with no work. Consequently, the Court held that it had no option but to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The key principle laid down is that the Court will not tolerate the unexplained absence of legal representatives, including the Advocate-on-Record, which obstructs the administration of justice and wastes judicial time, thereby justifying the dismissal of the underlying cause for non-prosecution.
- Can an appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant's counsel is absent?
- Does the absence of an Advocate-on-Record justify the dismissal of an appeal?
- Is a telegraphic request for adjournment sufficient to prevent the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution?
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C. J.‑‑‑‑ Mr. Fazal‑i‑Mahmood, counsel for the appellant, has sent a telegraphic request for adjournment to the second Bench, before which he had to appear in another case. It is stated in the telegram that Mr. Fazal‑i‑Mahmood, has o appear at Lahore in a personal case.
2. Whatever be the reason for which Mr. Fazal‑i‑Mahmood is absent, we see no justification for the absence of the Advocate‑on‑Record for the appellant As observed in the order we have passed today in Civil Appeal No. 99 of 1970, only three appeals were fixed for today, but none of them could be heard as counsel for the appellants were absent. Consequent upon it there is not work to keep the Court occupied for the today. As this is a sad state of affairs we have no option, but to dismiss this appeal for non‑prosecution. There will be no order as to costs.
3. Appeal dismissed.