Pakistan Case Law
1976 SCMR 387

WALAYAT AGENCIES. LYALIPUR Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1976 SCMR 387
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Judge(s)Muhammad Yaqub Ali, C. J., Salahuddin Ahmed, Muhammad Afzal Cheema, Muhammad Akram and Dorab Patel
ResultAppeal dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon an application by the Advocate-on-Record seeking withdrawal from the case due to the appellant's lack of cooperation in prosecuting the appeal. Both counsel retained by the appellant declined to appear at Rawalpindi, presumably due to unpaid fees, and the appellant failed to respond to a registered hearing notice sent by the Advocate-on-Record. The core legal question concerns the disposal of an appeal where the appellant fails to cooperate or ensure representation. The Court held that the appeal must be dismissed for non-prosecution under such circumstances, with no order as to costs. The key principle laid down is that an appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant displays total lack of cooperation, fails to instruct counsel, and neglects to make arrangements for representation at the hearing.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • What is the consequence when an appellant fails to cooperate with counsel and does not make arrangements for representation at the hearing of an appeal?
  • Can an Advocate-on-Record withdraw from a case when the appellant fails to communicate or cooperate in the prosecution of the appeal?
dismissal for non-prosecutionwithdrawal of counsellack of cooperationappellant defaultSupreme Court procedure

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C. J. ‑Mr. Ijaz Ahmad , Khan, Advocate- on‑Record for the appellant, has filed an application for withdrawal from the case as the appellant has not co‑operated with him in the prosecution of the appeal.

2. Both the coup‑el retained by the appellant have declined to appear before the Court at Rawalpindi presumably because they have not been paid the fee. The Advocate‑on‑Record sent a registered letter to the appellant on 7‑1‑1976 informing him that the appeal was listed for hearing but he has sent no reply to him.

3. The appeal is, in the circumstances, dismissed for non‑prosecution. There will be no order as to costs.

4. Appeal dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.