Pakistan Case Law
1976 SCMR 401

SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY Versus AKHTAR SULTANA

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1976 SCMR 401
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1970
Date1975-10-30
Judge(s)Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Salahuddin Ahmed, Anwarul Haq and Muhammad Gul
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 as an appeal filed by the Settlement Authority against Akhtar Sultana. The core legal question concerns the disposal of an appeal where neither the appellant nor its counsel or Advocate-on-Record is present at the hearing, and an adjournment is sought merely through an improper telephonic message. The court held that requesting an adjournment by a telephonic message demonstrates discourtesy to the court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution with no order as to costs due to the respondent's absence. The key principle laid down is that appeals may be summarily dismissed for non-prosecution when parties fail to make a proper appearance and attempt to secure adjournments through informal and discourteous means.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant and counsel fail to appear?
  • Is seeking an adjournment through a telephonic message acceptable practice before the Supreme Court?
dismissal for non-prosecutionadjournmentabsence of counselsupreme court practice

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB AL1, J.‑ ‑Neither the appellant nor his counsel is present. Even the Advocate‑on‑Record is absent. It is stated by Khawaja Mushtaq, Advocate‑on‑Record that a telephonic message had been sent by Mr. Maqbul Elahi Malik who is to appear for the appellant that he is busy at Lahore and on (that account the hearing of the appeal be adjourned.

2. To say the least Mr. Maqbul Elahi has been most discourteous to this Court by asking for adjournment by a telephonic message.

3. In the result the appeal is dismissed for non‑prosecution. As the respondent has also not put in appearance, 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.