PAKISTAN STEEL Versus MUHAMMAD AZHAR

DECISION

This is an application for the restoration of an appeal which was dismissed in default on the 1st of March, 1993.

2. It is alleged that the learned counsel for the appellant could not turn up before 12‑15 hours as he had a matter before the High Court.

3. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi has filed a counter‑affidavit in which it has been said that the matter fixed in the High Court had not proceeded at all and he has filed a copy of the `Order Sheet' in that case where the adjournment was by consent of the lawyers.

4. It is also alleged in the counter‑affidavit that the learned Single Judge before whom the matter was fixed was also a Member of a Division Bench which had eight cases listed before it that day, and the practice in the High Court is that the Division Bench sittings take precedence. The Cause List also shows the sittings of the Division Bench at 8‑15 in the morning. There is a rejoinder filed but the facts mentioned in the counter‑affidavit have not been controverted.

5. The fact that there was a matter of a counsel listed in some other Court is no ground not to pursue other professional engagements elsewhere diligently. It is alleged that the learned counsel had turned up at 12‑15 but no application for restoration was made on that day.

6. I am afraid no premium can be placed on such a non‑chalant attitude, and to my mind no sufficient cause had been made out, to restore the appeal. I will, therefore, dismiss the application.

H.B.T./2192/Lb.S Application dismissed.