SHIRIN BEGUM Versus HABIB BHAI

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J .‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 28‑9‑1986 of the Sind High Court; whereby on remand from the Supreme Court it dismissed petitioner's Rent Appeal against the ex parte orders of his ejectment.

2. The question raised before us is that the order for proceeding ex parte against the petitioner should have been set aside. The High Court observed as follows in this behalf:

3. "Mr. Iftikhar on the other hand contended that the appellant and her counsel had been negligent in pursuing the matter after 15‑11‑1983 inasmuch as no one attended on 3‑12‑1983 when the appellant's/ respondent's witness was discharged who was to be cross‑examined by the appellant's counsel. He further stated that there have been three more hearings on 2‑1‑1984, 15‑1‑1984 and 31‑1‑1984 when the appellant and her counsel absented themselves from the Court and finally they were again absent on 1‑2‑1984 when the order for ejectment was passed------"there does not seem to be any effort having been made by the appellant's counsel between 15‑11‑1983 to 1‑2‑1984 or even up to 26‑3‑1984 for the purpose of ascertaining from the Court as to what had happened to the case. It was a rent case and the stage was evidence of the appellant's witness who was to be cross‑examined and, therefore, the appellant and her counsel should have been vigilant in persuing the matter but they have shown their negligence by not making any inquiries about the matter after 15‑11‑1983 till 1‑2‑1984" .----------------------"Even if an ordinary effort had been made, it would have been easily possible to ascertain from the register of the cases as to what was the next date of hearing after 15‑11‑1983 but no such effort was evidently made and the result was that ex parte final order was passed on 1‑2‑1984 and the application for setting aside that order was made on 7‑4‑1984 which was evidently beyond time."

4. We accept, in the circumstances of this case, the statement of the learned counsel that after adjournment on 15‑11‑1983 on his request, the next date was not entered in his diary due to mistake. But the subsequent inaction for some time when the case was adjourned for several times, is in‑excusable.

5. The impugned orders are unexceptionable. This petition is dismissed.

6. M.I. /S‑110/S Petition dismissed.