Mir AIJAZ ALI AND 2 OTHERS vs Mir HAJI AND 11 OTHERS
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan following a series of adjournment requests by the petitioners. Despite previous adjournments granted on four separate occasions, the petitioners failed to appear for the scheduled hearing. The court noted that the petitioners were fully aware of the hearing date, as evidenced by their prior unsuccessful attempt to have the matter adjourned or transferred to Karachi, a request which had been explicitly rejected by the Chief Justice. Given the petitioners' absence and the history of repeated delays, the court found no justification for further postponement. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. The court further observed that a belated application for adjournment, received by post after the order of dismissal had already been announced, was of no legal effect. The court also noted that no separate order was required regarding a reference pending before it, as the issues therein were governed by a previous final judgment of the Court.
- Can a petition be dismissed for non-prosecution when the petitioners fail to appear after multiple previous adjournments?
- Is a belated application for adjournment received after the announcement of a dismissal order legally effective?
ORDER
1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-The case has been called out. None is present for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent is however, present. He states that the learned Advocate-on- Record and the learned counsel for the petitioners are aware of today's hearing. It is also apparent from their application for adjournment and hearing at Karachi, which was` rejected by H. C. J on 19- 11-1983 with the following order :- "As the availability of this particular Bench cannot be ensured at Karachi, it was, therefore, that this matter was ordered to be fixed here. Accordingly it will not be possible to adjourn the case which has already been listed for hearin4",.
2. Earlier too this petition was adjourned on four occasions on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not a fit case for adjournment particularly when none has appeared today, till 10 a. m. It is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution.
3. ' It is not necessary to pass any separate orders on the reference leeched in this Court. The questions raised therein have to be determined in accordance with the earlier final judgment of this Court.
4. Before parting with this order it needs to be noted that after about an hour of the announcement of the foregoing order another application for c adjournment was received by post. In view of what has been ordered above, thus belated application is of no avail to the applicant.