MUHAMMAD BAKHSH Versus THAI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J. ‑Leave to appeal has been sought from ‑the order dated 18‑1‑1977 of the Lahore High Court, whereby it refused to restore a regular second civil appeal after its dismissal for default.

2. Two points have been urged by the learned counsel. One, that the counsel representing the petitioner in the High Court, not being a member of the High Court Bar Association had no facility regarding the supply of the daily list; and, two, that the said counsel was under an impression that (he, despite the direction to do the needful had not taken steps for impleading legal representatives of a deceased party) the case would not be fixed the same being incomplete.

3. Same points having been raised in the High Court have been properly dealt with, in the impugned order. The learned counsel was held to have been negligent. We do not find any departure from any principle in this behalf. The extraordinary indulgence sought by the' learned counsel was, in the circumstances of the case, rightly refused. This petition has n merit and is accordingly dismissed.

4. S. Q. Leave refused.