HAJI MUHAMMAD Versus SHAH MUHAMMAD

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J. -Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 480 of 1975, was dismissed as withdrawn on 25-2-1977 by the then learned Chief Justice in Chamber on an office note. Although none had appeared on behalf of the petitioners, the said order was passed on a written applica tion, dated 25-2-1977 submitted by Mr. Inayat Hussain Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner'. It is mentioned in para. 2 of the said application that the petitioners did not want to pursue the matter as they had entered into a com promise with the respondents. Subsequently, an application was moved on behalf of the petitioners that they had not instructed the Advocate-on-Record to withdraw the petition. Accordingly, they sought the restoration of the petition by the recall of order, dated 25-2-1977. Mr. Inayat Hussain explained that he had conducted the proceedings as Advocate-on-Record on instructions received from one Allah Jawaya who was acting for and on behalf of the petitioners in so far as the instructions are concerned. The contesting respondents represented by Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi opposed the application for restoration of the main petition on various grounds. The matter came up for hearing on several occasions. The controversy which needed to be resolved was whether the petitioners had appointed Allah Jawaya as their agent or not. Another application has been filed by the petitioners for the change of their second Advocate-on-Record namely, Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi and permission to appoint Mr. Abdur Razaq as their new Advocate-on-Record.

2. We have heard Mr. Inayat Hussain and Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi at length and have also questioned Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi on various aspects of the controversy. We have also perused the record.

3. It is not necessary to resolve in these miscellaneous proceedings the controversy as to whether Allah Jawaya was asked by the petitioners to give instructions on their behalf to Mr. Inayat Hussain, because the case put forward from the respondents' side in writing does not disclose that there was any compromise between. The petitioners and the respondents (which wary stated to be the basis of the withdrawal application). It is an admitted position that the petitioners had not come in contact with Mr. Inayat Hussain either for filing the petition or for with drawing the same. Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi also at the end of the argument gave up the opposition to the restoration of the main petition. In the peculiar circumstances of the case we in order to do complete justice in the matter, allow the restoration application and recall the order of dismissal, of the main petition a withdrawn. The same is restored to its original number. It may now bet fixed for hearing in the next week.

4. There is no I objection from any side with regard to the prayer of the petitioners to appoint Mr. Abdur Razaq as their new Advocate-on-Record. We accordingly allow the application for appointment of Mr. Abdur Razaq as Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners subject to the condition that he would not seek further time in the matter. With the above orders, all these Miscellaneous Applications stand disposed of.

5. Order accordingly.